Make Jool a planet you can land on.

[Space Kadet]

1 hour ago, sirgoodman said:

 

1 hour ago, sirgoodman said:

That is what I'm taking about.

I know plenty about science, I'm saying adding something like that would make the game more interesting. Plus it would only be slightly unrealistic unlike other things in the game like magic boulders, the fact that a kerbal can hit the ground at 20 meters per second, and not die (that's 1200 meters a minuet, and 72000 meters an hour) how is that realistic?   

20ms in 45 mpy roughly and as someone who was hit by a bus that was doing 40 and didnt break anything i know thats possible..... to clarify i was liquided, so maybe kerbals are an alcoholic race! that explains why they sound like drunk midgets....

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Space Kadet

[qzgy]

1 hour ago, JedTech said:

Prove it! For now, I agree that landing on the gas giant sounds fun  
Can you achieve a Jool Return mission? Yikes!

What do you mean "jool return mission"?

Also, why not look things up yourself?

[Gaarst]

Download RSS, try to ascend from Venus and come back once you've achieved it. Then we can discuss landing on the core of a gas giant (semi) seriously.

[Greenfire32]

Jool is a gas giant made of gas which means the matter that constitutes it is gaseous...

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, Greenfire32 said:

Jool is a gas giant made of gas which means the matter that constitutes it is gaseous...

What we've seen is gaseous. As others have stated the pressure alone deeper in the atmosphere is dense enough to liquefy it.

[JadeOfMaar]

@ZooNamedGames The issue now is, as @Greenfire32 hints at, that the thread is derailing. People are talking about "land masses" and "flag planting" on Jool.

Edited June 22, 2017 by JadeOfMaar

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@ZooNamedGames The issue now is, as @Greenfire32 hints at, that the thread is derailing. People are talking about "land masses" and "flag planting" on Jool.

*looks at thread title*

I think we're very much on topic when discussing land masses on Jool. 

 

[Greenfire32]

On 6/21/2017 at 7:42 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

What we've seen is gaseous. As others have stated the pressure alone deeper in the atmosphere is dense enough to liquefy it.

Regardless, KSP is an attempt to be analogous with real-world spaceflight (if you want to go into semantics, I believe Kerbin's density, and therefore its gravity, is faaaaaarrr too great to allow celestial bodies like the Mun and Minmus to exist).

My point being: KSP is a game and as such will take certain liberties. Some bodies have stats that simply couldn't actually exist, but do serve a gameplay purpose. But on the whole, KSP remains largely faithful to a realistic approach to contemporary space flight.

Real gas giants don't have a "surface," neither should in-game representations. Full stop. Landing on Jool is just as equally absurd as landing on Kerbol.

What the OP wants is NOT the ability to land on Jool. What he wants is an entirely NEW planet with a THICK ATMOSPHERE a la Eve. He just doesn't realize it.

On 6/21/2017 at 8:07 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

@ZooNamedGames The issue now is, as @Greenfire32 hints at, that the thread is derailing. People are talking about "land masses" and "flag planting" on Jool.

Eh sort of. Since the thread is about discussing landing on Jool, I personally think it's still on topic. But I will agree with you on the ridiculousness of "landing" on what is essentially a gravity-bound cloud of gas.

Honestly, at this point I'm kind of amazed that some people think there is a valid argument in support of landing on Jool. But what do I know? [snip] I really shouldn't be surprised by all this anymore.
--------
Final Thoughts:

Landing on Jool is dumb. It's stupid and dumb and impossible for a multitude of reasons, but if I HAVE to simplify it and boil it down to one reason, I chose this: it violates the spirit of the game.

Landing on Jool is just as asinine as requesting that jet engines should work in space. Sure, that afterburner looks cool and all, but it would never operate in an oxygen-free environment. Just like "landing" on a cloud of gas can never happen. This may be a game, but it still has the goal of remaining REALISTIC towards actual spaceflight. KSP is allowed to fudge some details (like making Kerbin have roughly the same gravity as Earth while being 10.9 times smaller), because it means the player can get to orbit in less than 8 minutes like it does in real life. The game is still beholden to the basics of orbital mechanics, however. You can't just burn straight for the Mun, you actually need to set up your maneuvers, because the SPIRIT of the game is contemporary spaceflight and the challenges that that presents.

 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Greenfire32 said:

Regardless, KSP is an attempt to be analogous with real-world spaceflight (if you want to go into semantics, I believe Kerbin's density, and therefore its gravity, is faaaaaarrr too great to allow celestial bodies like the Mun and Minmus to exist).

My point being: KSP is a game and as such will take certain liberties. Some bodies have stats that simply couldn't actually exist, but do serve a gameplay purpose. But on the whole, KSP remains largely faithful to a realistic approach to contemporary space flight.

Real gas giants don't have a "surface," neither should in-game representations. Full stop. Landing on Jool is just as equally absurd as landing on Kerbol.

What the OP wants is NOT the ability to land on Jool. What he wants is an entirely NEW planet with a THICK ATMOSPHERE a la Eve. He just doesn't realize it.

Eh sort of. Since the thread is about discussing landing on Jool, I personally think it's still on topic. But I will agree with you on the ridiculousness of "landing" on what is essentially a gravity-bound cloud of gas.

Honestly, at this point I'm kind of amazed that some people think there is a valid argument in support of landing on Jool. But what do I know? Trump's the president. There is an ongoing "anti-facts" movement sweeping the US (and influencing other nations) and I really shouldn't be surprised by all this anymore.
--------
Final Thoughts:

Landing on Jool is dumb. It's stupid and dumb and impossible for a multitude of reasons, but if I HAVE to simplify it and boil it down to one reason, I chose this: it violates the spirit of the game.

Landing on Jool is just as asinine as requesting that jet engines should work in space. Sure, that afterburner looks cool and all, but it would never operate in an oxygen-free environment. Just like "landing" on a cloud of gas can never happen. This may be a game, but it still has the goal of remaining REALISTIC towards actual spaceflight. KSP is allowed to fudge some details (like making Kerbin have roughly the same gravity as Earth while being 10.9 times smaller), because it means the player can get to orbit in less than 8 minutes like it does in real life. The game is still beholden to the basics of orbital mechanics, however. You can't just burn straight for the Mun, you actually need to set up your maneuvers, because the SPIRIT of the game is contemporary spaceflight and the challenges that that presents.

 

For something that can't happen and warrants a full stop- people have landed and even planted flags on Jool. 

[Greenfire32]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

For something that can't happen and warrants a full stop- people have landed and even planted flags on Jool. 

Then this thread should not exist.

But since we're going there; in the early days of KSP, through the use of glitches and cheats, people have also landed and planted flags on Kerbol. If you want an impossible thing to become possible for a couple minutes of entertainment, I will direct you to hyperedit, but suggesting we alter the rules of reality for a couple of kicks and giggles is just...well...go play Universe Sandbox if you want to set up scenarios that are completely insane. It still follows the laws of physics, but you can change Earth's gravity so that it sucks the Moon into itself just to see what happens.

And to be honest, that's not that far of a jump from wanting to plant a flag on gas.

[ZooNamedGames]

10 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Then this thread should not exist.

But since we're going there; in the early days of KSP, through the use of glitches and cheats, people have also landed and planted flags on Kerbol. If you want an impossible thing to become possible for a couple minutes of entertainment, I will direct you to hyperedit, but suggesting we alter the rules of reality for a couple of kicks and giggles is just...well...go play Universe Sandbox if you want to set up scenarios that are completely insane. It still follows the laws of physics, but you can change Earth's gravity so that it sucks the Moon into itself just to see what happens.

And to be honest, that's not that far of a jump from wanting to plant a flag on gas.

I didn't need cheats at all back then to land on jool. Was more of just finding an engineering method of doing so. As it should be.

Also, Jool or Jupiter contains fluids as we know. It's not 100% gas. There's fluids and therefore reasonably a body of liquid.

If you can build something to reach that point, then just let crafts settle on water with a peak of land for Easter egg/completionists. It's not for realism but for those who want the achievement. Which is where the fun of KSP lies.

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[tater]

It's dumb enough that Jool is tiny. So no.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, tater said:

It's dumb enough that Jool is tiny. So no.

So RSS. 

[tater]

Or rescaled Kerbol system, too.

[ZooNamedGames]

Issue I'm seeing here is "it can't be done", "Jupiter is a gas giant and only has gas" (obviously wrong), and "its not realistic".

Simple enough to remind people that through engineering challenges we have completed dozens of "impossible" tasks in the last century. Imagine what can be done with infinite funds, and the ability to engineer and deploy a satellite in moments to test and learn how to overcome an obstacle. As I said to someone else, having looked back in history in what was the norm and what was considered "Star Trek" style future technology and what we have now... I hear "I quit, the challenge is too big" when  someone says "it's impossible". 

As to Jupiter being gas... yeah as we've mentioned the pressure alone is enough to cause gases to liquify. So it exists, the pressure would just be massively great. Which is an engineering problem. Not a "can't do it" problem. As such, Jool can have a body of liquid too. 

Lastly the "it's not realistic" comments. Realism is a choice and a taste. Not everyone is up for playing with RO. Some enjoy being able to play without limitations and like doing what's impossible because it's a game. The one world where you can do something impossible.

Not to mention again, this is an engineering challenge. If they can overcome the pressure they deserve to find a body of liquid and the ability to dive in it. Only reason the flag planting exists is to let people have a personal sense of achievement.

9 minutes ago, tater said:

Or rescaled Kerbol system, too.

Basically RSS with stock's face.

-----------------

That said- a small island on jool won't be that wild an idea when we currently have a boulder that is magic, a pyramid of unknown origin, a face on both Kerbin and Duna, as well as a mysterious rover that beeps and then a stone henge on a moon of a gas giant, black mysterious slabs from unknown location only showing a grinning creature on it and a giant dead space kraken.

So please, continue to enlighten me how a 10x10 square meter plot of land for flag planting, doesn't fit or would be too unrealistic.

[Wallygator]

As I understand it, currently there is a boundary layer deep in the atmosphere of Jool where parts will glitch and/or be destroyed.  Frankly, until humanity actually sends a craft designed to descend/survive/transmit into the depths of Jupiter (or other gas giant), then the current in-game representation is fine with me.

I would, however, support more in-depth player interaction with Jool, but that would likely require a more seamless and well defined buoyancy and pressure model applied to planetary environs and also part specifications. Perhaps wider stock science parts, more vertical biomes perhaps, a storm system... Yet if this never happens, it's not a deal breaker.

However (as with most all improvement to the game that require higher levels of semi-realism) I don't have high hopes for this in stock.  Some mods (airships? IIRC) are available that address this, but I have not tried them.  

 

[ZooNamedGames]

26 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

As I understand it, currently there is a boundary layer deep in the atmosphere of Jool where parts will glitch and/or be destroyed.  Frankly, until humanity actually sends a craft designed to descend/survive/transmit into the depths of Jupiter (or other gas giant), then the current in-game representation is fine with me.

We've never landed a manned mission on Mars nor Venus. So should the surfaces of those planets not exist until we do?

Issue is we can do what we can't do in real life. We can test and retest things in the span of an hour that would take years in real life. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[Greenfire32]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

We've never landed on Mars 

...yes we have...

Edited June 22, 2017 by Greenfire32
Quote contains original wording before the word "manned" was added by the poster

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Greenfire32 said:

...yes we have...

Not a manned mission.

[Greenfire32]

16 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Not a manned mission.

Lmao I seriously cannot believe the logic you're implying behind this comment. 

I think we're done here. Have a good night. Seriously.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Greenfire32

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Greenfire32 said:

Lmao I seriously cannot believe the logic you're implying behind this comment. 

I think we're done here.

Your pushing a bias of realism on a game that intends to simulate realism within the realms of its own liberties outside of altering the mechanics of the game for the players. 

So you can be done. Go ahead.

Edited June 22, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[Greenfire32]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Your pushing a bias of realism on a game that intends to simulate within the realms of its own liberties outside of altering the mechanics of the game for the players. 

So you can be done. Go ahead.

 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Greenfire32 said:

 

And your avoiding the topic by falling to grammer posts. 

Truly you are done here because you have nothing more productive to say. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[Greenfire32]

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

And your avoiding the topic by falling to grammer posts. 

Truly you are done here because you have nothing more productive to say. 

Love you. Peace.

[vger]

12 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Your pushing a bias of realism on a game that intends to simulate realism within the realms of its own liberties outside of altering the mechanics of the game for the players. 

So you can be done. Go ahead.

Jool is meant to be an analogue of Jupiter, therefore the prospect of landing there is wrong.

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

Real gas giants don't have a "surface," neither should in-game representations. Full stop. Landing on Jool is just as equally absurd as landing on Kerbol.

Kerbol is an analogue of Earth. Our ability to land on Earth is not in question. It's not a relevant comparison.

Edited June 22, 2017 by vger