What are some of your planetary, planetary features, solar system or solar system features ideas?

[GoldForest]

What are some of your planetary, planetary features, solar system or solar system features ideas you'd like to see in game?

Here are a few of mine: 

1) Colliding planets. - We have Rask and Rusk, and if KSP had real gravity and physics, those two may well collide with each other, so why not make a planet system that is colliding? Maybe not two full sized planets. Maybe a moon colliding with a planet that created a debris field in orbit. Of course, this is dependent on the "fix" they have in place for binary planets and/or bodies.

2) A super fast orbiting body - whether around a star or a moon that is just grazing the atmosphere of its parent planet, this would give a unique challenge for sure. Would also make orbiting the planetary parent interesting as you would have to either maintain a high orbit or get into a synchronous orbit with the moon. Not to mention the havoc it would cause for gravity when you land on the planet. Low gravity when the moon is over head, high gravity when it's on the opposite side if the planet. Though, you would get a helping hand if you launched in the low grav effect the moon caused.

3) Binary or Trinary star systems - Why not? Tatooine anyone? How about that planet from Riddick Pitch Black?

4) A water world with changing tides - I know this might be hard to do in game, but having to build a colony to withstand tidal forces would be a fun challenge I feel.

5) A planet with a thick gaseous/dusty atmosphere - Think Venus, or Mars during its planet wide dust storm. Low visibility, large rocks scattered around the landing site. Would be an interesting challenge. Not only landing, but taking off as well, thick atmosphere means lots of drag. 

6) A planet that has ravines everywhere - and I'm talking ravines ranging in all sizes, from a few dozen meters to Grand Canyon deep, but not necessarily as wide. A ravine a few miles deep with just enough clearance for a landing rocket... you're going to scratch the paint alright, but the rewards might be worth it. 

7) Seismically active planet - Rask and Rusk might have this, but it's to be expect. I mean a non lava world that is just earthquakes, or planet quakes if you prefer, every so often ranging from a simple shakey action, lander might move an inch or two, to massive quakes that will bounce or tip your lander over. Better bring some weights or grapple lines to tie down the lander.

8) A planet or dwarf planet that had its core ripped out, leaving a giant hole straight through the planet - basically... donut world. Oh come on, you want the challenge of having to fall into the hole and then have enough power to break out of the gravity well... you don't? Why not? It's and interesting challenge and it would be funny to get your vessel trapped in the center of a hollow world, and then have to rescue them... some how.

9) A world with a dormant composite volcano - basically I want a funnel that I can land in. Think Mohole, but with an area to land in at the bottom. Try not to scratch the paint on the way down... or up.

10) Dyson Sphere - gravity would be weird, yes, but that's the challenge. Having to deal with going from landing on the outside the planet surface to the inside of the planet's surface. Just, don't forget the barf bag.

Edited September 14, 2019 by GoldForest

[KerikBalm]

No

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

What are some planets or solar systems you would like to see?

1) Colliding planets. - We have Rask and Rusk, and if KSP had real gravity and physics, those two may well collide with each other, so why not make a planet system that is colliding? Maybe not two full sized planets. Maybe a moon colliding with a planet that created a debris field in orbit. Of course, this is dependent on the "fix" they have in place for binary planets and/or bodies.

2) A super fast orbiting body - whether around a star or a moon that is just grazing the atmosphere of its parent planet, this would give a unique challenge for sure. Would also make orbiting the planetary parent interesting as you would have to either maintain a high orbit or get into a synchronous orbit with the moon. Not to mention the havoc it would cause for gravity when you land on the planet. Low gravity when the moon is over head, high gravity when it's on the opposite side if the planet. Though, you would get a helping hand if you launched in the low grav effect the moon caused.

3) Binary or Trinary star systems - Why not? Tatooine anyone? How about that planet from Riddick Pitch Black?

4) A water world with changing tides - I know this might be hard to do in game, but having to build a colony to withstand tidal forces would be a fun challenge I feel.

5) A planet with a thick gaseous/dusty atmosphere - Think Venus, or Mars during its planet wide dust storm. Low visibility, large rocks scattered around the landing site. Would be an interesting challenge. Not only landing, but taking off as well, thick atmosphere means lots of drag. 

6) A planet that has ravines everywhere - and I'm talking ravines ranging in all sizes, from a few dozen meters to Grand Canyon deep, but not necessarily as wide. A ravine a few miles deep with just enough clearance for a landing rocket... you're going to scratch the paint alright, but the rewards might be worth it. 

7) Seismically active planet - Rask and Rusk might have this, but it's to be expect. I mean a non lava world that is just earthquakes, or planet quakes if you prefer, every so often ranging from a simple shakey action, lander might move an inch or two, to massive quakes that will bounce or tip your lander over. Better bring some weights or grapple lines to tie down the lander.

8) A planet or dwarf planet that had its core ripped out, leaving a giant hole straight through the planet - basically... donut world. Oh come on, you want the challenge of having to fall into the hole and then have enough power to break out of the gravity well... you don't? Why not? It's and interesting challenge and it would be funny to get your vessel trapped in the center of a hollow world, and then have to rescue them... some how.

9) A world with a dormant composite volcano - basically I want a funnel that I can land in. Think Mohole, but with an area to land in at the bottom. Try not to scratch the paint on the way down... or up.

10) Dyson Sphere - gravity would be weird, yes, but that's the challenge. Having to deal with going from landing on the outside the planet surface to the inside of the planet's surface. Just, don't forget the barf bag.

#1- There's several issues with this; not just the fact that the devs want to steer clear of N-body physics. So for the moment i'm going to pretend they're not using a "On rails" system and proper n-body physics has been implemented; what timescales do you make this occur on? Too long and the player will never see it; too short and they're going to be wondering where this debris field come from? Do we pull a subnautica and script it so that the pair has no orbital decay until the player encounters it and triggers a script that causes them to rapidly decay? Do we attach missions/quests? 

#2-No fundemental issue here; i would love to see some "Hot Jupiter" like systems where the orbital period is literally measured in days.

#3- This could be implemented; though without N-body it becomes less interesting.

#4-Haven't we confirmed dynamic weather won't be a thing already?

#5-No fundemental issues

#6-I actually like this idea

#7-No real issues, but i would wait to see if they actually offer any ways of securing landers.

#8-I don't really understand this concept; you would need a massive planet to pose any hazard and any such body which suffered the described damage would rapidly collapse back into a sphere under it's own gravity.

#9-I like muh Volcanos

#10- Dyson spheres as commonly depicted (Solid shells) aren't actually possible, but a dyson swarm could accomplish the same and be gravitationally stable. The biggest issue i see with this is that it automatically means there is or was a advanced civilization in the area; which i don't think makes much sense.

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

#1- There's several issues with this; not just the fact that the devs want to steer clear of N-body physics. So for the moment i'm going to pretend they're not using a "On rails" system and proper n-body physics has been implemented; what timescales do you make this occur on? Too long and the player will never see it; too short and they're going to be wondering where this debris field come from? Do we pull a subnautica and script it so that the pair has no orbital decay until the player encounters it and triggers a script that causes them to rapidly decay? Do we attach missions/quests? 

#2-No fundemental issue here; i would love to see some "Hot Jupiter" like systems where the orbital period is literally measured in days.

#3- This could be implemented; though without N-body it becomes less interesting.

#4-Haven't we confirmed dynamic weather won't be a thing already?

#5-No fundemental issues

#6-I actually like this idea

#7-No real issues, but i would wait to see if they actually offer any ways of securing landers.

#8-I don't really understand this concept; you would need a massive planet to pose any hazard and any such body which suffered the described damage would rapidly collapse back into a sphere under it's own gravity.

#9-I like muh Volcanos

#10- Dyson spheres as commonly depicted (Solid shells) aren't actually possible, but a dyson swarm could accomplish the same and be gravitationally stable. The biggest issue i see with this is that it automatically means there is or was a advanced civilization in the area; which i don't think makes much sense.

1) Like I said, it depends on the fix they have for binary systems. As for the collosion, I was thinking it's more in permanent stasis, just a moon sticking out of the planet. 

2) Days? I was thinking hours.

3) We'll have to wait and see their 'fix' for binary and up systems.

4) Dynamic weather, yes, but tides are not weather. They are water. And they have semi-confirmed water is a big feature in the game. Also, it's not that hard to make changing tides, just make the water sphere grow or shrink in size. Or, make the water model oval instead of spherical with the planet, then put it on a synchronous spin with the moon to where the edges are keeping speed with said moon.

5)  

6)

7) KIS style ropes, or if nothing like that, then makeshift landing legs using the 'claw' part.

8) True, I do know this. But this is KSP we're talking about. Do you really care if impossible planets are in the game? 

9) Landing in them will be fun.

10) Yeah, but sphere would be more gravitationally stable than millions of plates running across each other. Each plate would have it's own gravity and thus add wonky physics. A sphere would just have 3 gravity zones. The outside of the shell, the inside of the shell, and the star. 

[magnemoe]

As I understand an donut planet can be made stable, its require an pretty narrow margin for its spin however 
It would however have an pretty weird gravitation field if you get close. 

Now an close in planet could be fun, perhaps one there the sun side would be to hot to land on but you can land on the backside 
Getting into orbit here would be an challenge, you have your starship but its probably overheat very fast so close to the sun. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

23 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

1) Like I said, it depends on the fix they have for binary systems. As for the collosion, I was thinking it's more in permanent stasis, just a moon sticking out of the planet. 

2) Days? I was thinking hours.

3) We'll have to wait and see their 'fix' for binary and up systems.

4) Dynamic weather, yes, but tides are not weather. They are water. And they have semi-confirmed water is a big feature in the game. Also, it's not that hard to make changing tides, just make the water sphere grow or shrink in size. Or, make the water model oval instead of spherical with the planet, then put it on a synchronous spin with the moon to where the edges are keeping speed with said moon.

5)  

6)

7) KIS style ropes, or if nothing like that, then makeshift landing legs using the 'claw' part.

8) True, I do know this. But this is KSP we're talking about. Do you really care if impossible planets are in the game? 

9) Landing in them will be fun.

10) Yeah, but sphere would be more gravitationally stable than millions of plates running across each other. Each plate would have it's own gravity and thus add wonky physics. A sphere would just have 3 gravity zones. The outside of the shell, the inside of the shell, and the star. 

#1- Alright; that makes more sense

#2- Oh right; forgot some of the crap out there orbits within hourly periods. 

#3- Personally i wouldn't get my hopes up; it's unlikely the fix is anything more than the hacks we already know of. Happy to be proven wrong though.

#4-Fair enough

#7-ZE CLAWWWWW

#8-Technically all planets in stock KSP are "Impossible" so i actually don't; just make sure they add sprinkles to this donut world.

#9-Landing, flying, crashing, sacrificing to the kraken lord etc.

#10 Shells actually aren't stable gravitationally; as they spread out the force resulting in a net zero gravitational influence. A Dyson shell would rapidly collapse into a sphere or debris without additional reinforcement; then again i just said "Impossible" worlds don't bother me that much so i kinda shot myself in the foot here.

[GoldForest]

25 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

#9-Landing, flying, crashing, sacrificing to the kraken lord etc.

It's a dormant volcano. Go to Rask or Rusk if you want to sacrifice your Kerbal virg… er… I mean, Kerbal Volunteers. You need lava to make a sacrifice after all. Unless you enjoy watching them go splat after a few thousand feet drop... oh gosh... volcano with micro gravity, your sacrifice would take hours to die. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

It's a dormant volcano. Go to Rask or Rusk if you want to sacrifice your Kerbal virg… er… I mean, Kerbal Volunteers. You need lava to make a sacrifice after all. Unless you enjoy watching them go splat after a few thousand feet drop... oh gosh... volcano with micro gravity, your sacrifice would take hours to die. 

I'm actually not sure which would be worse; on one hand if you didn't give them oxygen they would pass out within moments and plummet to their doom in a deep sleep. On the other hand if you did, they would have to be consious and aware the entire time down. Knowing there's nothing they can do as the canyon walls slowly rise before them; what a horrible fate that would be. 

[Guest]

Most of these are rather too science fantasy for my taste. I would prefer that the planets and planetary systems are at least somewhat plausible; scaled-down or with characteristics exaggerated for gameplay reasons certainly, but they ought to have a real-world counterpart -- either known or hypothetical is fine by me. Additionally you have to consider cost of implementation -- if the planets need entire new systems to work then it might not be worth it. 

My reactions to your list:

• "No" on colliding planets. The timescales are wrong and this would require a whole new system, namely a dynamically changing universe.
• "No" on super-fast orbiting body as you describe it, it wouldn't be physically plausible (gravitational forces would tear the bodies apart)... but see below.
• "Maybe" on binary/trinary systems. They would need n-body physics to work properly, but OTOH there's already Rask and Rusk; maybe that "bespoke" solution -- whatever it is -- could also work on them. I'd like them in the game, just not sure how they would work given what we know about it.
• "Maybe" on the water world. Tides would be cool, but they might be too complicated to implement. For one thing fluid dynamics aren't in (as far as we know), and if it just manifests as water level going up and down it's not really worth it IMO.
• "Yes" on dust/fogworld.
• "No" on canyonworld. It's not geologically plausible. Just put a bunch of canyons on other worlds with something interesting in them to discover.
• "No" on quakeworld. Given how robust Kerbal craft are this would be just a cosmetic effect, it also wouldn't be geologically plausible as you describe it, with quakes so frequent you need to nail things to the ground.
• "No" on donutworld. That's completely implausible.
• "Yes" on the volcano, that would be a cool surface feature somewhere. Doesn't need its own planet however. 
• Hard "maybe" on the Dyson sphere. I really don't know what to feel about alien artefacts in general; you've got some monoliths and stuff in KSP1 so they're clearly there but ... yeah. If alien ruins are in the game then sure why not a Dyson sphere.

Some things that I would like to see that I don't think would be particularly difficult to implement but would be cool:

• Different types of stars. White dwarf, red giant, blue giant, red dwarf, super-Jupiter.
• Neutron star with a planetary system -- maybe a super-Kerbin with a very thick atmosphere shielding the surface: https://apatruno.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/the-habitable-zone-around-neutron-stars/
• Black hole with an accretion disk and a planetary system. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

 

• Different types of stars. White dwarf, red giant, blue giant, red dwarf, super-Jupiter.
• Neutron star with a planetary system -- maybe a super-Kerbin with a very thick atmosphere shielding the surface: https://apatruno.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/the-habitable-zone-around-neutron-stars/
• Black hole with an accretion disk and a planetary system. 

It would be interesting to see a Brown Dwarf system; imagine how dark it would be only illuminated by the trickle of light that courses throughout the galaxy. Even more interesting would be a Brown Dwarf/Neutron Star binary (No idea how it could happen but w/e) with multiple moons surrounding it. Considering the timescales something like that would need to form however, it could be close enough to the neutron parent that the moons are habitable. 

I wouldn't mind a black hole, but would prefer it to be in a nice place for gravity assists. 

There's an infinite variety of possible systems that could be imagined and be realistic, but without knowing much about KSP2 and what the community will do with it i'm really not in a position to let my mind go wild. 

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I'm actually not sure which would be worse; on one hand if you didn't give them oxygen they would pass out within moments and plummet to their doom in a deep sleep. On the other hand if you did, they would have to be consious and aware the entire time down. Knowing there's nothing they can do as the canyon walls slowly rise before them; what a horrible fate that would be. 

They might hit the ground at such a low speed that they might not die and could just jump out. 

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Most of these are rather too science fantasy for my taste. I would prefer that the planets and planetary systems are at least somewhat plausible; scaled-down or with characteristics exaggerated for gameplay reasons certainly, but they ought to have a real-world counterpart -- either known or hypothetical is fine by me. Additionally you have to consider cost of implementation -- if the planets need entire new systems to work then it might not be worth it. 

My reactions to your list:

• "No" on colliding planets. The timescales are wrong and this would require a whole new system, namely a dynamically changing universe.
• "No" on super-fast orbiting body as you describe it, it wouldn't be physically plausible (gravitational forces would tear the bodies apart)... but see below.
• "Maybe" on binary/trinary systems. They would need n-body physics to work properly, but OTOH there's already Rask and Rusk; maybe that "bespoke" solution -- whatever it is -- could also work on them. I'd like them in the game, just not sure how they would work given what we know about it.
• "Maybe" on the water world. Tides would be cool, but they might be too complicated to implement. For one thing fluid dynamics aren't in (as far as we know), and if it just manifests as water level going up and down it's not really worth it IMO.
• "Yes" on dust/fogworld.
• "No" on canyonworld. It's not geologically plausible. Just put a bunch of canyons on other worlds with something interesting in them to discover.
• "No" on quakeworld. Given how robust Kerbal craft are this would be just a cosmetic effect, it also wouldn't be geologically plausible as you describe it, with quakes so frequent you need to nail things to the ground.
• "No" on donutworld. That's completely implausible.
• "Yes" on the volcano, that would be a cool surface feature somewhere. Doesn't need its own planet however. 
• Hard "maybe" on the Dyson sphere. I really don't know what to feel about alien artefacts in general; you've got some monoliths and stuff in KSP1 so they're clearly there but ... yeah. If alien ruins are in the game then sure why not a Dyson sphere.

Some things that I would like to see that I don't think would be particularly difficult to implement but would be cool:

• Different types of stars. White dwarf, red giant, blue giant, red dwarf, super-Jupiter.
• Neutron star with a planetary system -- maybe a super-Kerbin with a very thick atmosphere shielding the surface: https://apatruno.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/the-habitable-zone-around-neutron-stars/
• Black hole with an accretion disk and a planetary system. 

 

Like I said with the colliding planets, it would be cosmetic really, a static model, no movement from the moon like plunging into the planet. 

Not true, there are plenty of stable super fast orbits in the universe. Rare and improbable, but not impossible. 

We'll have to wait and see. 

Well, we have semi-confirmation about water mechanics getting a major overhaul, possibly to allow true submarines and ships. When asked about underwater relics or artifacts, Nate gave a smiler and a no comment. 

It is geologically plausible. A planet that is tearing itself apart or being torn apart by outside force would have fissures, cracks, etc from the stresses, would it not?

Again, geologically plausible if the planet was under going planetary scaled stress. Rask and Rusk in real life would be causing seismic activity on one another quite badly. 

I will admit, planets with holes in them aren't very realistic, but asteroids with holes in them are. I would settle for donut asteroid. 

Alien artifacts are semi-confirmed by Nate as well. When asked about them, he gave a no comment. 


Other stars would be nice. And since radiation might be in the game, it would make the bigger bad boys a challenge, especially with neutron stars.

Super-Earths would be neat even without the neutron star. 

Black holes would be neat, but quite difficult to implement.

[Guest]

Oh hey, I thought of one more: rogue planets. Say a gas giant just floating on its own in interstellar space, lit by starlight only.

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

Not true, there are plenty of stable super fast orbits in the universe. Rare and improbable, but not impossible. 

I was going by how you described it. "Super fast" is kind of a relative proposition... In that case, the problem would again be that to work plausibly that would need n-body physics as well. But if this is what you meant, then I'll switch my vote to "maybe," like for binaries/trinaries.

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

It is geologically plausible. A planet that is tearing itself apart or being torn apart by outside force would have fissures, cracks, etc from the stresses, would it not?

Planets don't tear themselves apart.

Tidal forces could do it though, so in that context sure, why not?

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

Again, geologically plausible if the planet was under going planetary scaled stress. Rask and Rusk in real life would be causing seismic activity on one another quite badly. 

Hm, yeah, maybe. I'll change my vote to "maybe" on that too. 

In fact it sounds a lot like quakeworld and ravineworld could be Rask and Rusk. There could also be a Europa-like icy moon with ice ravines.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

They might hit the ground at such a low speed that they might not die and could just jump out. 

 

Like I said with the colliding planets, it would be cosmetic really, a static model, no movement from the moon like plunging into the planet. 

Not true, there are plenty of stable super fast orbits in the universe. Rare and improbable, but not impossible. 

We'll have to wait and see. 

Well, we have semi-confirmation about water mechanics getting a major overhaul, possibly to allow true submarines and ships. When asked about underwater relics or artifacts, Nate gave a smiler and a no comment. 

It is geologically plausible. A planet that is tearing itself apart or being torn apart by outside force would have fissures, cracks, etc from the stresses, would it not?

Again, geologically plausible if the planet was under going planetary scaled stress. Rask and Rusk in real life would be causing seismic activity on one another quite badly. 

I will admit, planets with holes in them aren't very realistic, but asteroids with holes in them are. I would settle for donut asteroid. 

Alien artifacts are semi-confirmed by Nate as well. When asked about them, he gave a no comment. 


Other stars would be nice. And since radiation might be in the game, it would make the bigger bad boys a challenge, especially with neutron stars.

Super-Earths would be neat even without the neutron star. 

Black holes would be neat, but quite difficult to implement.

Black holes would actually be easier to implement than Rask and Rusk; they don't actually require any special physics if you're willing to settle for a compact object with insane density and make people automatically go "Bang" once they cross a certain threshold. 

Also i think he was talking about the idea of a moon orbiting so close it's orbital speed would be extremely high; this is an actual physical limitation and we even have a rather nice term for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit  most of the stuff we've discovered with extremely high orbital speeds is M A S S I V E. Which is why i mentioned "Hot jupiters" since they fit the bill.

Also if you have so much geological activity that massive earthquakes are a frequent enough occurence that you need to strap down then why isn't the surface already liquid? I mean i can't discount a weird middle ground between "Geologically stable" and "Literally ball o lava" may exist but if the planet is under that much force it's going to have much more surface activity than just quakes.

Also i'm not aware of neutron stars being particularly much of a radiation hazard, far more of an issue is the massive magnetic fields they tend to have. Though some of them are Pulsars so it's not impossible for them to be a radiation hazard.

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also i'm not aware of neutron stars being particularly much of a radiation hazard, far more of an issue is the massive magnetic fields they tend to have. Though some of them are Pulsars so it's not impossible for them to be a radiation hazard.

I was talking about Pulsars and their massive EM radiation. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Just now, GoldForest said:

I was talking about Pulsars and their massive EM radiation. 

Alright; didn't know if another weird flavor of them had been discovered or not xD

 

[kerbiloid]

A planet constantly randomly changing its shape and temperature (so, the ocean gets frozen/unfrozen).

Enough quickly to be every time other.
Enough slowly to safely land and have a walk around.

Edited September 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[ChrisSpace]

Honestly what I hope for most is that Novasilisko's original outer solar system ideas are implemented in one of the star systems. Plus everything you're all talking about.

 

Also, an extremely long time ago, before there were any planets besides Kerbin, there was a thread for suggesting new planet ideas, which had tons and tons of good suggestions. Can someone find that?

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

Icliie these ideas, except for maybe 1 and 10 which I'm not really sure would work or make sense, but the others are great! Perfectly realistic, too.

7 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

No

Wow, uh, that's kind of blunt and vague?

[Tw1]

A donut planet. 
This will likely never happen due to some technical limitation or another, but imagine it...
Actually, imagine a couple, with different relative rotational axes, each more physically unrealistic than the last...

 

(Ok, i don't think this should be in it. Would make a cool mod though.)

[KerikBalm]

6 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

Icliie these ideas, except for maybe 1 and 10 which I'm not really sure would work or make sense, but the others are great! Perfectly realistic, too.

Wow, uh, that's kind of blunt and vague?

They aren't realistic at all, or are pointless/ already confirmed to be in

18 hours ago, GoldForest said:

1) Colliding planets. - We have Rask and Rusk, and if KSP had real gravity and physics, those two may well collide with each other, so why not make a planet system that is colliding? Maybe not two full sized planets. Maybe a moon colliding with a planet that created a debris field in orbit. Of course, this is dependent on the "fix" they have in place for binary planets and/or bodies.

That's what Rask and Rusk are. They are either colliding on an astronomical time scale (as rask and rusk spiraling inward according to the dev video), or the collision is so rapid that its pointless. Also would require a change from patched conics to N-body, which they say they aren't doing.

A debris field is a ring, and they already confirmed that we'll have a new system with many ringed planets.

Quote

2) A super fast orbiting body - whether around a star or a moon that is just grazing the atmosphere of its parent planet, this would give a unique challenge for sure. Would also make orbiting the planetary parent interesting as you would have to either maintain a high orbit or get into a synchronous orbit with the moon. Not to mention the havoc it would cause for gravity when you land on the planet. Low gravity when the moon is over head, high gravity when it's on the opposite side if the planet. Though, you would get a helping hand if you launched in the low grav effect the moon caused.

This would rapidly collide, is the same as suggestion 1. Also would require a change from patched conics to N-body, which they say they aren't doing.

Quote

3) Binary or Trinary star systems - Why not? Tatooine anyone? How about that planet from Riddick Pitch Black?

Would require a change from patched conics to N-body, which they say they aren't doing.

Quote

4) A water world with changing tides - I know this might be hard to do in game, but having to build a colony to withstand tidal forces would be a fun challenge I feel.

Tidal forces wouldn't have any significant effect on a colony. If they did, the body would be well within the roche limit, and would have been torn apart long before the tidal forces themselves matter for your colony. As for a change in water lever, any planet with huge tides will rapidly tidally lock, and have standing tides. So we're left with Earth or titan like tides, which are quite mild, or basically a colony that has to deal with changing liquid levels... ie just build high enough

Quote

5) A planet with a thick gaseous/dusty atmosphere - Think Venus, or Mars during its planet wide dust storm. Low visibility, large rocks scattered around the landing site. Would be an interesting challenge. Not only landing, but taking off as well, thick atmosphere means lots of drag. 

Thick gaseous = Eve or Jool, why is this a suggestion? Dusty = Duna with the EVE mod... just make the suggestion for dusty effects, a new planet isn't needed.

Quote

6) A planet that has ravines everywhere - and I'm talking ravines ranging in all sizes, from a few dozen meters to Grand Canyon deep, but not necessarily as wide. A ravine a few miles deep with just enough clearance for a landing rocket... you're going to scratch the paint alright, but the rewards might be worth it. 

No, that would be boring. Planets should have diverse geography in a way that makes sense. Look at a mars height map, its got very diverse terrain, with some ravines. I'd rather see sparse ravines, but found on Kerbin, duna, laythe, a titan analogue, Mun (Graben and such), etc

Quote

7) Seismically active planet - Rask and Rusk might have this, but it's to be expect. I mean a non lava world that is just earthquakes, or planet quakes if you prefer, every so often ranging from a simple shakey action, lander might move an inch or two, to massive quakes that will bounce or tip your lander over. Better bring some weights or grapple lines to tie down the lander.

Seismically active= fine, like.... laythe and its geysers? already in KSP 1.

Earthquakes knocking over landers? no... maybe, maybe, maybe having an affect on tall spindly colonies though... but only if its in a situation where plate tectonics makes sense. AFAIK, earth is the most active as far as earthquakes that we know of (maybe there are crustal quakes on jupiters moons though

Quote

8) A planet or dwarf planet that had its core ripped out, leaving a giant hole straight through the planet - basically... donut world. Oh come on, you want the challenge of having to fall into the hole and then have enough power to break out of the gravity well... you don't? Why not? It's and interesting challenge and it would be funny to get your vessel trapped in the center of a hollow world, and then have to rescue them... some how.

*edit completing responses*

Not only is that completely unrealistic, but that's not even how it would behave if such an artificial and unnatural structure were to exist.

Quote

9) A world with a dormant composite volcano - basically I want a funnel that I can land in. Think Mohole, but with an area to land in at the bottom. Try not to scratch the paint on the way down... or up.

Like the ravines suggestion, I am not opposed to the terrain feature, but I'm opposed to a planet based around a single geographic feature. My mod world Rald (with mars height data) has volcanoes with big "funnels" to land in.

Quote

10) Dyson Sphere - gravity would be weird, yes, but that's the challenge. Having to deal with going from landing on the outside the planet surface to the inside of the planet's surface. Just, don't forget the barf bag.

No, and also, there's be no net gravity from the sphere inside the shell... its weird like that.

Edited September 13, 2019 by KerikBalm

[GluttonyReaper]

4 hours ago, Tw1 said:

A donut planet. 
This will likely never happen due to some technical limitation or another, but imagine it...
Actually, imagine a couple, with different relative rotational axes, each more physically unrealistic than the last...

 

(Ok, i don't think this should be in it. Would make a cool mod though.)

Think of the gravity assists... for maximum efficiency, you'd have to go through the centers of as many donuts as possible

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

They aren't realistic at all, or are pointless/ already confirmed to be in

Yeah, you're partially right, I didn't read through the list fully I guess. Specifically I misread #2 as a super fast rotating body (which is fine) and I seemed to have completely missed #5-8, and I have to agree with your complaints for #5 and #8 makes... no sense.

 

The rest of this list is still fine though, still don't agree with "no."

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Planets should have diverse geography in a way that makes sense.

100% agree, in fact I think the variety of surfaces of planets is seriously underrated, BUT a bunch of ravines still makes a lot of sense to me. Nobody said the planet had to be nothing but ravines, just that there would be a lot of them. I know this isn't exactly what they are, but I was thinking of Europa.

Edited September 13, 2019 by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

[GoldForest]

7 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

That's what Rask and Rusk are. They are either colliding on an astronomical time scale (as rask and rusk spiraling inward according to the dev video), or the collision is so rapid that its pointless. Also would require a change from patched conics to N-body, which they say they aren't doing.

Rask and Rusk will never collide. I'm talking about having a static model that looks like a planet and another planet or moon are physically colliding. Like I said before, I'd be fine with a static model of just the moon sticking out of the planet with rings around it to simulate debris. No need for N-body.

Quote

This would rapidly collide, is the same as suggestion 1. Also would require a change from patched conics to N-body, which they say they aren't doing.

Collide with what? It's a single planet or moon orbiting at high-speeds. Hours to days to weeks. And it wouldn't need N-body, just a simple work around or cheat.
 

Quote

Would require a change from patched conics to N-body, which they say they aren't doing.

Again with the N-body? No. N-body isn't needed, just a workaround or cheat to make it work, like what they are doing with Rask and Rusk.

Quote

Tidal forces wouldn't have any significant effect on a colony. If they did, the body would be well within the roche limit, and would have been torn apart long before the tidal forces themselves matter for your colony. As for a change in water lever, any planet with huge tides will rapidly tidally lock, and have standing tides. So we're left with Earth or titan like tides, which are quite mild, or basically a colony that has to deal with changing liquid levels... ie just build high enough

Tidal forces would have a major effect if the water mechanics are changed to allow ships and submarines. A colony would have a lot of buoyancy, all those inflatable modules. So you would have to pick a high spot, or be willing to have your colony subjected to floating if you place it on a beach. 
 

Quote

Thick gaseous = Eve or Jool, why is this a suggestion? Dusty = Duna with the EVE mod... just make the suggestion for dusty effects, a new planet isn't needed.

Eve =/= thick gaseous. Eve = Thick ATMOPSHERE. There's a difference. I'm talking thick VISIBLE gas, like Venus, to where the gas basically blocks your view. As for Dusty, I'm not talking like wind kicking up dust, I'm talking about perpetual sandstorm conditions, with ranging visibility.
 

Quote

No, that would be boring. Planets should have diverse geography in a way that makes sense. Look at a mars height map, its got very diverse terrain, with some ravines. I'd rather see sparse ravines, but found on Kerbin, duna, laythe, a titan analogue, Mun (Graben and such), etc

I don't think it would be boring, and I don't think a lot of other people will either. It would present a challenge. The ravines would be a great source of science I feel, but getting down inside them to get to the science would be the challenge.
 

Quote

Seismically active= fine, like.... laythe and its geysers? already in KSP 1.

Earthquakes knocking over landers? no... maybe, maybe, maybe having an affect on tall spindly colonies though... but only if its in a situation where plate tectonics makes sense. AFAIK, earth is the most active as far as earthquakes that we know of (maybe there are crustal quakes on jupiters moons though

Planets under going gravitational stress would be seismically active, so a moon orbiting too close to it's parent planet would put stress on both itself and the parent planet. Quakes knocking over landers would be a challenge that I think quite a lot of people will welcome. 
 

Quote

Not only is that completely unrealistic, but that's not even how it would behave if such an artificial and unnatural structure were to exist.

I know it's unrealistic, but nothing in KSP really is realistic. It's realistic to a point, yes, but there's plenty of unrealism in KSP, so a donut asteroid isn't out of the question. 
 

Quote

Like the ravines suggestion, I am not opposed to the terrain feature, but I'm opposed to a planet based around a single geographic feature. My mod world Rald (with mars height data) has volcanoes with big "funnels" to land in.

Not all these suggestions are meant to be on their own planet. I should probably edit the title to say planetary FEATURES as well. 

 

[kerbiloid]

Colliding planets would start crashing and melting long before they approach to each other and look like a dumbbell.
And the collision would last for hours, maybe days. So, they would collide before someone could approach.

A tidal wave in open ocean is about a half meter high.
It needs some kind of friction or a bottleneck to get several meters high.
If a moon causes several meters high tidal wave in the ocean, this means that it's already so close to planet, that the moon is crashing, and the planet is heating.
So, no giant waves like in the Interstellar, just a waving sea, like already in KSP.

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I'm talking thick VISIBLE gas, like Venus, to where the gas basically blocks your view.

On Venus the gas is still transparent.
Aerosol clouds in the upper atmosphere block the view from space. Beneath the clouds the atmosphere looks pretty nice, like on the Earth in cloudy day.
So, you should want a mist, rather than the gas. Say, a bog planet, like the Venus was described in early XX sci-fi.

***

Protuberances on the Kerbal sun. To fly through.

[KerikBalm]

14 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Rask and Rusk will never collide. I'm talking about having a static model that looks like a planet and another planet or moon are physically colliding. Like I said before, I'd be fine with a static model of just the moon sticking out of the planet with rings around it to simulate debris. No need for N-body.

They were described as being in a "dance of death", and they'd be in orbits converging upon each other due to tidal forces and lumpyness, etc. If they are low mass bodies, they'd become contact binaries. If they were bigger, you'd get something like what happened to our moon:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-moons-smaller/

A static model would be terrible and completely unrealistic, unless we're talking not about a planet, but a gilly or smaller sized body.

Quote

Collide with what? It's a single planet or moon orbiting at high-speeds. Hours to days to weeks. And it wouldn't need N-body, just a simple work around or cheat.

Umm, yea, it would need N-body to work right. And realistically it would have a decaying orbit if it was right above the karman line, but even worse it would be well within the roche limit, and would disintigrate into a ring system.

Quote

Again with the N-body? No. N-body isn't needed, just a workaround or cheat to make it work, like what they are doing with Rask and Rusk.

Based on the interviews, first they didn't realize that there'd be a problem, then they said there would be a custom solution ("bespoke"  I believe is the word they used)... people such as Scott Manley doubt they have a solution. There is no workable cheat or workaround that has been proposed so far in this thread:

that doesn't discard patched conics. Maybe not N-body, but at least 3 body is needed.

Quote

Tidal forces would have a major effect if the water mechanics are changed to allow ships and submarines. A colony would have a lot of buoyancy, all those inflatable modules. So you would have to pick a high spot, or be willing to have your colony subjected to floating if you place it on a beach. 

You are confusing tidal forces on a craft, with the tides. If you mean we'd have to deal with tides, just say that. Personally changing sea levels are ok with me, but not all that interesting.

It would be cool if we could make water surfaces use a heightmap instead of being perfect spheres... then we can make rivers and mountain lakes, etc. Tides could be simulated by a rotating non-spherical ocean surfaces.

Quote

Eve =/= thick gaseous. Eve = Thick ATMOPSHERE. There's a difference. I'm talking thick VISIBLE gas, like Venus, to where the gas basically blocks your view. As for Dusty, I'm not talking like wind kicking up dust, I'm talking about perpetual sandstorm conditions, with ranging visibility.

You seem to mean opaque, not thick, or perhaps a thick haze. Be more precise.

Quote

I don't think it would be boring, and I don't think a lot of other people will either. It would present a challenge. The ravines would be a great source of science I feel, but getting down inside them to get to the science would be the challenge.

 I'm fine with ravines, but we have Mun canyon, some canyons on Moho, I've got ravines and canyons on Rald... I just wouldn't base a whole planet around them, and again, we already have them. Landing in the Mun canyon is a bit of a challenge, but its not too bad. Also I don't see how they'd be "a great source of science". We know nothing of how science will work, but at most with the mechanics we have: another biome, and surface features to scan.

Quote

Planets under going gravitational stress would be seismically active, so a moon orbiting too close to it's parent planet would put stress on both itself and the parent planet. Quakes knocking over landers would be a challenge that I think quite a lot of people will welcome. 

Its not orbiting too close per se, its eccentricity and other moons passing by. Tidal heating is not really the same thing as big "knock your lander over" quakes. We see no evidence of quakes of that magnitude on Enceledus, europa, or Io (where we see active geysers/volcanic events).

Even so, they wouldn't be very frequent. Earthquakes don't really cause things to tip over here, but the shaking causes structural failure, or breaks static friction and things slide off shelves (or sets up an oscillation in a building), it doesn't tip buildings over. So... maybe it could be an event causing structural failure in colonies, but definite no to tipping over landers.

Quote

I know it's unrealistic, but nothing in KSP really is realistic. It's realistic to a point, yes, but there's plenty of unrealism in KSP, so a donut asteroid isn't out of the question. 

Nothing in KSP is that unrealistic. The lack of realism is mostly due to limited computational/simulation power and development resources (like scaling a system down to have acceptable detail, and not simulating various things).

There's no body that so blatantly shouldn't exist.

Quote

Not all these suggestions are meant to be on their own planet. I should probably edit the title to say planetary FEATURES as well. 

Fine, but then also the features you are suggesting (ravines, big holes) are already present anyway... so why suggest them? One might as well suggest a body covered in an ocean, with various small islands (cough *laythe* cough)