Kerbin Geographical society

[Rath]

9 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

Wait, please specify what you mean by "Japan Islands".

The islands that are along the green line farthest to the left on the boundary map

And the second lowest line.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Rath

[The_Rocketeer]

Following up on my earlier thought, here's a new map with possibly tectonic boundaries based on sub sea-level elevation as well as mountain-chains and continental separations. I have not factored in any interlocking coastal regions however.

Spoiler

 

[Whirligig Girl]

ALTERNATE UNIVERSE WARNING! ALTERNATE UNIVERSE WARNING! -committee of Uncharted Lands Interuniversal Affairs.

 

The whole of Kerbin does appear, once when taking in the context of the rest of the solar system (including the three moons of Kerbin: Minmus, Mun, and Dres, as well as the sky arches that wrap like rings around the equator of the world) that Kerbin is like any other planet. While both above and underground influences have warped and distorted them, the easily distinguishable seas of Kerbin are in fact huge impact basins left over from the initial formation of the planet.

Rocks returned from the RM-4 and RD-9 Mun and Dres missions suggest that Kerbin, Mun, and Dres share a common heritage. They could have formed out of the same accretion disc, but more radical theories suggest that Mun, Dres, and Kerbin were all formed from a massive collision of two major protoplanets. While the orbits of Mun and Dres were at first unstable, it is thought that a series of close encounters of the object which would one day form the Tylo/Laythe system caused the orbit of Dres to go outward, and the Mun's orbit went inward. Samples from the rings of Kerbin and the surface of Minmus show that both phenomena are related to each other and totally separate from the formation of the rest of the Kerbin System.

Kerbin's coverage of planet life, frost, and desert show off the seasonal terror of our world, caused only due to the shadows cast by our planet's large rings. During the winter the rings cast a complete shadow over the landscape, making all vegetation cold and frozen. During the summer, our sun's intense heat causes droughts and heat waves. It's a miracle life evolved on our--oh wait, what's that? Wait, Kerbin doesn't have axial tilt? Nevermind, then.

[nosirrbro]

3 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

-snip-

Your fine to put these here but none of the things from this will be canon for the rest of the thread really,

[The_Rocketeer]

4 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

ALTERNATE UNIVERSE WARNING! ALTERNATE UNIVERSE WARNING! -committee of Uncharted Lands Interuniversal Affairs.

 

 

Hah, comic relief... I love it!

But seriously, I'm claiming that unclaimed arctic right now.

[nosirrbro]

Also, since for whatever reason Kerbin nation maps have been put here im posting this because I feel like it (For my NS region)

[Matuchkin]

8 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

But seriously, I'm claiming that unclaimed arctic right now.

[nosirrbro]

Found evidence that could be a tectonic plate ripping away from one of the continents

 

A large amount of a decrease in altitude between two mountain ranges? Seems like a good chance of a peice being ripped away.

[Rath]

Yep norrisbro

guy can we please not have nation maps here?

[nosirrbro]

11 hours ago, Rath said:

Yep norrisbro

guy can we please not have nation maps here?

I'm pretty sure that was only a thing for about 20 minutes,

[msasterisk]

If I have time, I'll add arrows to the tectonic maps showing relative plate motion.

[Rath]

On 5/16/2016 at 6:24 AM, The_Rocketeer said:

Good spot.

Here's another picture (from a south-polar projection):



It seems to me that in several places, peninsulas of the southern ice-cap are detaching from the main body.

Perhaps this time in Kerbin's history is a period of somewhat-increased sun activity, causing a steady rapid-rate shrinking of the ice-sheets?

I looked at it with a sub today.

Here is where my rocket landed:

http://imgur.com/41iuKnO

Here is the sub pressed against the 'Wall' (the island has nearly vertical sides)

http://imgur.com/WFIjhJV

Here is the sub on the bottom:

http://imgur.com/4ZmX1SI

For some reason, when on the bottom if I position the camera too close the bottom, the terrain disappears:

http://imgur.com/5GdOGJY

[nosirrbro]

6 hours ago, Rath said:

I looked at it with a sub today.

Here is where my rocket landed:

http://imgur.com/41iuKnO

Here is the sub pressed against the 'Wall' (the island has nearly vertical sides)

http://imgur.com/WFIjhJV

Here is the sub on the bottom:

http://imgur.com/4ZmX1SI

For some reason, when on the bottom if I position the camera too close the bottom, the terrain disappears:

http://imgur.com/5GdOGJY

I'm pretty sure that for the sake of this thread we ignore the fact that Kerbin terrain can't handle overhangs or floating ice caps and assume it was meant to be floating and not going to the sea floor

[The_Rocketeer]

I'm personally inclined to agree with @nosirrbro here, tho I respect and appreciate the effort that went into investigating the 'wall'. It's understood that the way planet surfaces are defined means that overhangs or hollows are impossible. If that could be changed, I think it's fair to assume that it very soon would be to make the 'ice caps' more realistic. On the other hand, we have to deal with what we can see. As on Earth some 'scientists' ignore inconvenient truths, I think it's quite justifiable for Kerbin scientists to choose whether to do the same, so long as they have a good, logical theory.

So, either we accept that these are ice caps that float even though they're not floating (a RP/choose to believe solution), or we accept that they're ice caps that reach to the seabed, in which case we need a theory about how and why they reach to the seabed, or we accept that they're not ice caps at all, in which case we need a new theory about why the crustal surface is so white and uniform and smooth at the poles.

[Rath]

Perhaps its snow on rock?  That is somehow verticlly cut smoothly

[nosirrbro]

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'm personally inclined to agree with @nosirrbro here, tho I respect and appreciate the effort that went into investigating the 'wall'. It's understood that the way planet surfaces are defined means that overhangs or hollows are impossible. If that could be changed, I think it's fair to assume that it very soon would be to make the 'ice caps' more realistic. On the other hand, we have to deal with what we can see. As on Earth some 'scientists' ignore inconvenient truths, I think it's quite justifiable for Kerbin scientists to choose whether to do the same, so long as they have a good, logical theory.

So, either we accept that these are ice caps that float even though they're not floating (a RP/choose to believe solution), or we accept that they're ice caps that reach to the seabed, in which case we need a theory about how and why they reach to the seabed, or we accept that they're not ice caps at all, in which case we need a new theory about why the crustal surface is so white and uniform and smooth at the poles.

I figure if we for the sake of the thread are saying that the rivers on Kerbin do actually move, then we should also grant that same liberty to these ice caps.

[The_Rocketeer]

One of the things I was trying to convey before is, I don't think we all need to agree on everything. If @Rath wants to make a theory about how the poles are covered with snowy rock, I don't have a problem with that - whether anybody buys it or not is up to them. I don't expect that our various opinions or ingenuities will ever become  a single cohesive 'Definitive Natural History of Kerbin'.

[Paaaad]

Poking around Kerbal Maps, I think I have two more impacts on Kerbin. This first one must be of some age, as a river has since cut across it.

I'm somewhat less confident in this other one, simply because of how big it is in relation to the island. On second look though, I see a far clearer one at top left.

[nosirrbro]

28 minutes ago, Paaaad said:

Poking around Kerbal Maps, I think I have two more impacts on Kerbin. This first one must be of some age, as a river has since cut across it.

I'm somewhat less confident in this other one, simply because of how big it is in relation to the island. On second look though, I see a far clearer one at top left.

The first one seems possible, but I dont think that the second one is an impact, just how some islands form. Anyway the chance of an asteroid hitting a small island dead center like that is extremely low.

[Rath]

I'm actually a proponent of the "The icecaps should be moving" group, just throwing things out.

[Rath]

Another Dry riverbed:

 

http://imgur.com/UjOzQIy

[The_Rocketeer]

For the crater-hunters: Impact Cratering

I think it might be worth in-game expeditions to visit some of these possible craters, assuming they don't have 'over the horizon' rims. Standing on top of the 'rebound peak', you could get some really cool panorama-style screenshots of the rim, and it could then be much more obvious whether you're really standing in a crater or just a freak arrangement of elevations.

@nosirrbro, can you expand on what you mean by 'natural island formation'? How do you explain the island? While I agree that an asteroid impact here is doubtful, I also find it difficult to justify any other view. It isn't part of an obvious island chain, it doesn't have a volcanic peak, and on my elevation map I see that the ocean is shallower all around this island for a considerable distance, so continental drift and river erosion don't seem likely either. In the absense of a better theory, and being unable to find one of my own, I'm compelled to agree with @Paaaad as the only theory we have.

[nosirrbro]

8 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

For the crater-hunters: Impact Cratering

I think it might be worth in-game expeditions to visit some of these possible craters, assuming they don't have 'over the horizon' rims. Standing on top of the 'rebound peak', you could get some really cool panorama-style screenshots of the rim, and it could then be much more obvious whether you're really standing in a crater or just a freak arrangement of elevations.

@nosirrbro, can you expand on what you mean by 'natural island formation'? How do you explain the island? While I agree that an asteroid impact here is doubtful, I also find it difficult to justify any other view. It isn't part of an obvious island chain, it doesn't have a volcanic peak, and on my elevation map I see that the ocean is shallower all around this island for a considerable distance, so continental drift and river erosion don't seem likely either. In the absense of a better theory, and being unable to find one of my own, I'm compelled to agree with @Paaaad as the only theory we have.

While I do not have a deltailed theory beyond when the island formed a higher elevation ring formed, there are many unlikelyhoods that this island was hit by a crater and just because we only have one super detailed theory doesn't make it true. One thing is that the elevated areas follow perfectly with the shores of the island. Unless that island in the past used to be a perfect circle or oval that was oriented in just the way the crater formed in the past, this seems unlikely. The only way it would make sense is if the impact somehow made the island grow with the edges somehow, however im not sure if this is even possible. Another is the fact that this meteor, in the short amount of time that craters of that size stay easily visible, hit dead center on that island.

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, nosirrbro said:

While I do not have a deltailed theory beyond when the island formed a higher elevation ring formed, there are many unlikelyhoods that this island was hit by a crater and just because we only have one super detailed theory doesn't make it true. One thing is that the elevated areas follow perfectly with the shores of the island. Unless that island in the past used to be a perfect circle or oval that was oriented in just the way the crater formed in the past, this seems unlikely. The only way it would make sense is if the impact somehow made the island grow with the edges somehow, however im not sure if this is even possible. Another is the fact that this meteor, in the short amount of time that craters of that size stay easily visible, hit dead center on that island.

The issue I have with this sort of critical analysis is that it doesn't add anything to the discussion, only subtracts. The process of a meteorite impact is simple: meteor hit ground, dirt flew everywhere, round-ish crater rim (and perhaps rebound peak) was left behind (In many cases u can extend this with 'weathering/tectonic motion occured resulting in distortion/destruction of crater rim', even in cases where the area looks very unlike a crater, using the justification of further changes over time). The process of anything else may be just as simple or it could be much more complicated, but if you're not offering processes then you're not really offering anything except discouragement.

Everything here is reading between the lines, there isn't anything concrete, so denouncing a weak theory on the basis that the evidence is weak (when you haven't got stronger evidence of anything else to offer) isn't very sporting. I'm quite happy to modify the overview in light of superior evidence arising later, but I choose not to dismiss or discourage theories on the basis that they don't seem very likely. Very unlikely things happen all the time.

[Rath]

My idea on the island formation is that it is collapsed ancient volcano.  Kind of like Krakatoa.  The higher sides are the remanants of the sides, rounded with erosion.