A few cents to contribute to our knowledge of Kerbin's water.

[Ethen Sun]

I just updated to 1.3, and decided to send a probe underwater to study KSP hydrology. Transported on an ICBM, of course.

I don't know how much of this is new, if any, but here's what I got. One thing i forgot to do was bring solar panels and measure if their output was compromised at all.

Telemetry and data signal do not seem to be affected.

The first thing I noticed is that my probe wouldn't sink. Dang. Welp, I'm here, and some of the instruments are slightly in the water, so let's open the service bay and do a scan.

When opened, the service bay sinks. When closed, the service bay floats.

Interesting. This could prove to be useful for buoyancy control, recovering an undersea vessel. So down I go. 

Temperature decreases steadily, about 0.03 degrees per meter.

Barometer shows sea level pressure, 101.325 kPa

Gravity shows a very slight increase, here at the bottom, -1083m it shows 9.85m/s

Atmospheric analysis cannot be run while sinking. At the bottom, the reading is the same as at the surface: "Temperature and Pressure readings suggest today is as good a time for flying as any."

Interestingly, EVE clouds can be seen very clearly from the ocean floor.

This data is from 65 35 48 S, 78 06 34 W.

[Geonovast]

2 minutes ago, Ethen Sun said:

When opened, the service bay sinks. When closed, the service bay float

I've never had any luck going under water (Haven't actually tried too much), but this is really good to know!  Thanks!

[Rocket In My Pocket]

On 8/30/2017 at 11:05 PM, Ethen Sun said:

I don't know how much of this is new, if any, but here's what I got. One thing i forgot to do was bring solar panels and measure if their output was compromised at all.

I've never done any empirical testing but my preferred method of underwater exploration has always been sea floor crawlers powered by solar panels. There didn't seem to be any loss of output in my experience.

On 8/30/2017 at 11:05 PM, Ethen Sun said:

When opened, the service bay sinks. When closed, the service bay floats.

For real?! That...actually sort of makes sense lol. Unlike everything else about part flotation. Good find!

[SupperRobin6394]

Why we need to know this? No clue.

 

Thanks for the info, I'm interested in doing deep-sea missions myself soon also.

 

What's the maximum dept we can go, though?

[p1t1o]

1 minute ago, SupperRobin6394 said:

Why we need to know this? No clue.

To answer questions like these:

1 minute ago, SupperRobin6394 said:

What's the maximum dept we can go, though?

...before they are asked

 

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, SupperRobin6394 said:

Why we need to know this? No clue.

 

Thanks for the info, I'm interested in doing deep-sea missions myself soon also.

 

What's the maximum dept we can go, though?

If I recall correctly there's a part of Eve's oceans that's below 2km. May be wrong in that.

Also the game doesn't really treat underwater any differently from the surface aside from pressure limits on parts and the buoyancy mechanics.

[SupperRobin6394]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

If I recall correctly there's a part of Eve's oceans that's below 2km. May be wrong in that.

Also the game doesn't really treat underwater any differently from the surface aside from pressure limits on parts and the buoyancy mechanics.

Well, it's an easy calculation what the vessel can handle.

Atmosphere = 1 bar

Go 10 meter deeper under water, add 1 bar.

(Dept in meters / 10) + 1 = pressure

 

At least this is what I learned during my PADI scuba diver training, assuming the laws of physics didn't change meanwhile 

Edited September 1, 2017 by SupperRobin6394

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, SupperRobin6394 said:

Well, it's an easy calculation what the vessel can handle.

Atmosphere = 1 bar

Go 10 meter deeper under water, add 1 bar.

(Dept in meters / 10) + 1 = pressure

 

At least this is what I learned during my PADI training, assuming the laws of physics didn't change meanwhile 

That's the extent of KSP's hydrodynamics as it doesn't calculate or follow any realistic underwater physics.

[SupperRobin6394]

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That's the extent of KSP's hydrodynamics as it doesn't calculate or follow any realistic underwater physics.

Guess I'll just drop a thing into the water and burn some fuel until it explodes because of pressure.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Sadly last time I checked, or tried using the setting for part destruction due to pressure, all parts fail at the same point, which isn't very deep at all.

Seems this feature is currently unfinished? I can't imagine it's intended to be this way.

Also, I'm no expert certainly but I couldn't find anything in the .ini's to edit the maximum pressure of parts, or I would have tried modding higher limits for better parts in already. Maybe some one more talented than me can shed some light on this?

[ZooNamedGames]

49 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Sadly last time I checked, or tried using the setting for part destruction due to pressure, all parts fail at the same point, which isn't very deep at all.

Seems this feature is currently unfinished? I can't imagine it's intended to be this way.

Also, I'm no expert certainly but I couldn't find anything in the .ini's to edit the maximum pressure of parts, or I would have tried modding higher limits for better parts in already. Maybe some one more talented than me can shed some light on this?

Yeah it seems around 400m all parts explode which is a bit unfair. There's no engineering element. It feels like a barrier a game like GTA V employs to stop the player from venturing too far beyond the play area... but in KSP's case the entire sea floor exists and can be explored. It was likely a simple fix for a new mechanic they added.

It's an issue that exist above and under the water as there also no means of engineering past the crushing depth of Jool. In reality it'd be about engineering around those challenges but as the game currently stands, it's just impossible.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hi regarding depth,  deepest spot I've found so far is just below one of my water launch points on Laythe at 2273mtrs .  For ref I don't use stock much at all, and haven't for a very long time, so my experience with that side is negligible.

My subs can go anywhere and do.  I've consistently avoided setting depth limits for my subs as where's the fun in that,  and I use only  stock style cfg's and modules, (a smattering of unity part magic)  and scaled Kerbal size masses etc, no funny buoyancy plugins etc,,      I will say that the parts are much tougher than stock style parts, KSP still has trouble with very heavy vessels ( = no KJR = no launch)  and the parts have to be strong enough to resist the (physics)  forces that being submerged exert on a multi part 120mtr long sub hull.  That said the mini sub below is quite light not exceptionally strong and has never given a moments trouble.

If you use mods you have to be careful as there are plenty of mods that mess with water physics in some way, and this in turn affects how water craft behave.

 

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

exists and can be explored.

Though unless someone puts something there for you to find, it's a dark and barren desert,  very little in the way of interesting underwater geology,  plain and featureless for the most part.  Another point to note as someone who has put stuff down there to find, unless the position is marked exactly and accurately it can be devilishly difficult to locate something,  the odds of discovery by chance are around the same as for wining the lottery

SO in the tradition of screenies or it didn't happen, both shots from Laythe.  Depth darkness is due to scatterer and even at -850 on Kerbin it's pitch black. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[ZooNamedGames]

30 minutes ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Though unless someone puts something there for you to find, it's a dark and barren desert,  very little in the way of interesting underwater geology,  plain and featureless for the most part.

Clearly your not familiar with Earth's large sprawling ocean floors. 

Strangely they got that right. 

That said, there are still loads of people interested in exploring the ocean floor.  

[adsii1970]

Personally, it is a challenge - much like that of getting into space. It may not have monoliths or pyramids, but it still holds a sense of "what can I do under the sea?!" And this is why I do the ships and subs that I do.

Just my two cents!

[Greenfire32]

On 8/30/2017 at 9:05 PM, Ethen Sun said:

When opened, the service bay sinks. When closed, the service bay floats.

We shall henceforth name this discovery, "The First Law of Ethen: a service bay at rest shall float, in operation shall sink."

[something]

Well, I don't see any new physical law here. It's Newtonian mechanics:

A body remains in its state of motion unless a force acts on the body.

Certainly,  you need to apply a force to open the bay doors as otherwise you couldn't open them. Discovering that Newtonian mechanics apply, should be enough for a paper in a journal. 'Newtonian Mechanics Valid on Kerbin'

[ZooNamedGames]

28 minutes ago, something said:

Well, I don't see any new physical law here. It's Newtonian mechanics:

A body remains in its state of motion unless a force acts on the body.

Certainly,  you need to apply a force to open the bay doors as otherwise you couldn't open them. Discovering that Newtonian mechanics apply, should be enough for a paper in a journal. 'Newtonian Mechanics Valid on Kerbin'

Issue is you can open it at any depth or pressure. Ignoring the force exerted on it. So if anything it's ignoring Newtonian physics, not applying it.

[Grand Ship Builder]

The service bay thing might prove useful.

[ZooNamedGames]

4 hours ago, Grand Ship Builder said:

The service bay thing might prove useful.

From my testing it's effect is very minute. Only a small craft got any use out of it even when the effect was multiplied by having 6.

[Ethen Sun]

53 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

From my testing it's effect is very minute. Only a small craft got any use out of it even when the effect was multiplied by having 6.

Yes, that may be a concern. But for my craft, up at the top, it was the difference between -0.3m/s and 0.6m/s. It's either I use that or add more ballast.

This effect would be most suited for small probes like mine, not big exploration rovers.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Ethen Sun

[something]

6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Issue is you can open it at any depth or pressure. Ignoring the force exerted on it. So if anything it's ignoring Newtonian physics, not applying it.

The fact that you can open it proves you do exert a force on it. If you do apply a force it is changing state of motion. Hence,  Newtonian mechanics are not disproven.

[Ty Tan Tu]

You inspired me to take a few pictures of the ocean floor off the coast of the KSP Center. The actual sea level is where the ship appears. You can also see it with the blue on the islands. There is a tiny angle where Unity will show a different view. I wanted to capture the ridge off the coast but either I ran out of light, or it was to deep for my surface craft.

 

[Ethen Sun]

7 hours ago, something said:

Well, I don't see any new physical law here. It's Newtonian mechanics:

A body remains in its state of motion unless a force acts on the body.

Certainly,  you need to apply a force to open the bay doors as otherwise you couldn't open them. Discovering that Newtonian mechanics apply, should be enough for a paper in a journal. 'Newtonian Mechanics Valid on Kerbin'

Newtonian mechanics is certainly not disproved, but is also invalid to describe the situation. Applying an outward force to open the doors should not cause the bay to move downwards. What I believe the game's logic is, is that opening the service bay floods it, reducing buoyancy, although this seems to be reversible without the use of any pumps.

[NSEP]

Nice. Now i know what i can expect when i colonize the ocean.

I like the fact that even though it is a space game, people tend to ignore that it is a space game and explore more places. Thats not a bad thing, its an amazing thing!

21 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

If I recall correctly there's a part of Eve's oceans that's below 2km. May be wrong in that.

The deepest point on Eve is 5.6km deep. You are more than right.

[magnemoe]

On 2.9.2017 at 4:35 AM, Ethen Sun said:

Newtonian mechanics is certainly not disproved, but is also invalid to describe the situation. Applying an outward force to open the doors should not cause the bay to move downwards. What I believe the game's logic is, is that opening the service bay floods it, reducing buoyancy, although this seems to be reversible without the use of any pumps.

Yes, I guess its treated as internal volume and protected while closed. has to test if this works for cargo bays too?