new planets and solar systems

[Dinarte]

i was wondering what kinds of planets there are gonna be in the new game, and how to travel to the different solar systems.

[Cleperli]

They have already shown us some rocky planets, as Rask and Rusk, and some gas giants, as Marble ( or is it glumo?)

[mcwaffles2003]

If you look through the pages on this board you'll find many discussions that answer that

[Zevulus]

Will there be new star types? Like Red Dawrfs, Or blue giants?

[Dinarte]

hope so some neutron stars woud be cool to see.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Dinarte

[Zevulus]

That would be amazing

 

Maybe like a core of a star in a binary pair with a nutron star

 

[Dinarte]

On 1/31/2020 at 1:49 AM, Zevulus said:

That would be amazing

 

Maybe like a core of a star in a binary pair with a nutron star

 

That would be sick

[Bej Kerman]

On 1/31/2020 at 12:49 AM, Zevulus said:

That would be amazing

Maybe like a core of a star in a binary pair with a neutron star

You mean a stellar remnant orbiting a neutron star?

[Guest]

A black hole would be interesting @_@!

[Dinarte]

On 2/10/2020 at 9:14 AM, Dale Christopher said:

A black hole would be interesting @_@!

I think that would be over kill

[Dirkidirk]

On 1/25/2020 at 3:09 PM, Cleperli said:

Marble ( or is it glumo?)

pretty sure that glumo is a moon of Murble, or is it the other way around?

42 minutes ago, Dinarte said:

I think that would be over kill

How? that's like saying that niagara falls are overkill. HOW ARE THEY OVERKILL?!?

Edited March 5, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[Dinarte]

On 3/5/2020 at 10:37 PM, Dirkidirk said:

pretty sure that glumo is a moon of Murble, or is it the other way around?

How? that's like saying that niagara falls are overkill. HOW ARE THEY OVERKILL?!?

There could be some in the game but small ones not black like the size of a solar system thats my opinion 

Just now, Dinarte said:

There could be some in the game but small ones not black like the size of a solar system thats my opinion 

And if black holes gonna be things in ksp2, how would we get sience out of it. Because if you send a probe or something to it the data cant reach your base.

[The Aziz]

37 minutes ago, Dinarte said:

There could be some in the game but small ones not black like the size of a solar system thats my opinion 

And if black holes gonna be things in ksp2, how would we get sience out of it. Because if you send a probe or something to it the data cant reach your base.

Even without taking signal delay into account, radiowaves travel at the speed of light. So as long as you don't get too close to the event horizon, the data should go through.

That being said, your probe would get ripped apart by gravity before you get even remotely close.  It's the same thing with getting science from stars. Get close enough to get some data, but far enough to be safe. A black hole could totally be a thing.

Edited March 7, 2020 by The Aziz

[mcwaffles2003]

 

8 hours ago, Dinarte said:

There could be some in the game but small ones not black like the size of a solar system thats my opinion 

And if black holes gonna be things in ksp2, how would we get sience out of it. Because if you send a probe or something to it the data cant reach your base.

Funny thing is that the smaller a black hole is the more dangerous it is to approach due to tidal forces... Also, why the size limit? Having a larger one at the center of all the solar systems would mimic a galactic core

[Chilkoot]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Funny thing is that the smaller a black hole is the more dangerous it is to approach due to tidal forces... Also, why the size limit? Having a larger one at the center of all the solar systems would mimic a galactic core

For sure - black holes may be far more common than expected.  In fact, there are models that predict remnant earth-mass stable black holes.  Hell, I've heard of theories suggesting there's one in own solar orbit responsible for the observed perturbations and grav lensing in trans-Neptunian space.  There may be reams of these scattered throughout the universe, and are one possible explanation for the observed dark matter phenomenon.

E: I don't believe that black holes less than roughly earth mass are stable - they would evaporate off over time.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Chilkoot

[Rejected Spawn]

I'd like to get in on this with the main reason I'd prefer not to have any black hole in KSP2. Now it really is pretty simple if you think about it; it's not that much fun from a gameplay perspective. We can't portray what's going on near it because we can't real life check it out and we never will, doesn't make sense trying to portray it in game either then because it would be based on nothing more than pure speculation. I'm all for having the "visitable" systems swirling around a common center (static stars would murder the realism to death but having overly complex movement would be quite hard on the average player) however I'd rather it be a huge neutron star or someting, anything that can be observed and is worth checking out relatively close up is nicer than just a dark void and getting a "sry u ded nao" message if you stray too close. Getting chills remembering the "You cannot go that way." message on screen at the edge of the map in certain games, ugh.

...well that was that...

On a much more personal note than arguing for gameplay factors I also find black holes to be an endless source of annoyance, their supposed "infinite" mass is nothing more than a hypothesis that was formed without a soild definition of what gravity actually is in the first place. We have observed odd gravitational pull that is hard to explain but we have also observed odd "repulsion" where gravity isn't as strong as it should be and it seems something is pushing back against it, we haven't actually found a carrier particle (I know plenty of theories exist but they suffer from a substantial lack of evidence) and we can't actually get to it and measure it beyond a tiny fraction of how strong we think it should be in certain places in the universe. Since I've been doing my own investigations and calculations for many years (intermittently and with no enthusiasm but still...) I'm extremely sceptical of gravitons in their purest sense existing, what we see as gravity is overwhelmingly likely to be other forces we are familiar with acting on specific particles that are in a low energy state where they don't behave in such a way that we can observe their presence the way we normally look for them - instead they act to pull nearby matter together and appear as a kind of "virtual" gravitons. Would love to go on a major keyboardspree on the topic but that will have to wait until my most important experiments and prototypes are done, hopefully later this year barring any mysterious globally looming virus mutating and killing me or some other such amusing event happening. At any rate all I've found in the raw data everywhere indicates that gravity isn't one monolithic force - just like you can't have a magnet with only one pole, and just like a magnetic field can't get any denser than what the carrier photons permit the gravitational pull has an upper limit of how densely the carrier particles can be packed. This means a neutron star is the densest it gets and a black hole is just an even bigger neutron star with enough surface area for the carrier particles to reach far outside in great enough numbers to affect light substantially. This also makes far more sense when you look at supposed observations of "ring shaped black holes" that are thought to be black holes that somehow became neat little rings that are perfectly stable and balanced. Right. Something as outlandish as infinite density ending up in a perfectly uniform manner so it doesn't break up in two cores but stays as a stable neat donut should have been a pretty good clue that something is amiss with the whole concept. Funny how a rapidly spinning and flattened neutron star fits the observable profile perfectly instead huh? Like I said this all annoys me endlessly, there is actual observational data that directly indicates major faults in a number of widely accepted theories just like this mess. This is what happens when someone forms a hypothesis after playing for too long with too little hard data, any slight faults in the original observations multiply in each step until you end up with nothing but pure speculation.

[Dirkidirk]

On 3/7/2020 at 6:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

anything that can be observed and is worth checking out relatively close up is nicer than just a dark void and getting a "sry u ded nao" message if you stray too close.

On 3/7/2020 at 6:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

On a much more personal note than arguing for gameplay factors I also find black holes to be an endless source of annoyance, their supposed "infinite" mass is nothing more than a hypothesis that was formed without a soild definition of what gravity actually is in the first place. We have observed odd gravitational pull that is hard to explain but we have also observed odd "repulsion" where gravity isn't as strong as it should be and it seems something is pushing back against it, we haven't actually found a carrier particle (I know plenty of theories exist but they suffer from a substantial lack of evidence) and we can't actually get to it and measure it beyond a tiny fraction of how strong we think it should be in certain places in the universe. Since I've been doing my own investigations and calculations for many years (intermittently and with no enthusiasm but still...) I'm extremely sceptical of gravitons in their purest sense existing, what we see as gravity is overwhelmingly likely to be other forces we are familiar with acting on specific particles that are in a low energy state where they don't behave in such a way that we can observe their presence the way we normally look for them - instead they act to pull nearby matter together and appear as a kind of "virtual" gravitons. Would love to go on a major keyboard spree on the topic but that will have to wait until my most important experiments and prototypes are done, hopefully later this year barring any mysterious globally looming virus mutating and killing me or some other such amusing event happening. At any rate all I've found in the raw data everywhere indicates that gravity isn't one monolithic force - just like you can't have a magnet with only one pole, and just like a magnetic field can't get any denser than what the carrier photons permit the gravitational pull has an upper limit of how densely the carrier particles can be packed. This means a neutron star is the densest it gets and a black hole is just an even bigger neutron star with enough surface area for the carrier particles to reach far outside in great enough numbers to affect light substantially. This also makes far more sense when you look at supposed observations of "ring shaped black holes" that are thought to be black holes that somehow became neat little rings that are perfectly stable and balanced. Right. Something as outlandish as infinite density ending up in a perfectly uniform manner so it doesn't break up in two cores but stays as a stable neat donut should have been a pretty good clue that something is amiss with the whole concept. Funny how a rapidly spinning and flattened neutron star fits the observable profile perfectly instead huh? Like I said this all annoys me endlessly, there is actual observational data that directly indicates major faults in a number of widely accepted theories just like this mess. This is what happens when someone forms a hypothesis after playing for too long with too little hard data, any slight faults in the original observations multiply in each step until you end up with nothing but pure speculation.

um... ok then.

well since there is going to be metallic hydrogen fuel in ksp 2, I doubt the studio would care even a little bit. I don't care either, I just want something cool to look at.

On 3/7/2020 at 6:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

we have also observed odd "repulsion" where gravity isn't as strong as it should be and it seems something is pushing back against it, we haven't actually found a carrier particle (I know plenty of theories exist but they suffer from a substantial lack of evidence) and we can't actually get to it and measure it beyond a tiny fraction of how strong we think it should be in certain places in the universe.

WHITE HOLES?!?

no

On 3/7/2020 at 6:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

but that will have to wait until my most important experiments and prototypes are done

 

On 3/7/2020 at 6:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

Funny how a rapidly spinning and flattened neutron star fits the observable profile perfectly instead huh?

yes

Edited March 9, 2020 by Dirkidirk
spelling

[George411]

Hello friends, i am a new player. I felt that i am really landed on the moon. It's so realistic. That's awesome...

[Dirkidirk]

55 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Hello friends, i am a new player. I felt that i am really landed on the moon. It's so realistic. That's awesome...

Nice, but you should have posted that here:

Also your username is your account name, you should probably get that changed. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[George411]

2 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

Nice, but you should have posted that here:

Also your username is your account name, you should probably get that changed. 

Noted with thanks @Dirkidirk

I am new in this community. So i need some time to understand.

[Terwin]

On 3/7/2020 at 2:21 PM, Chilkoot said:

E: I don't believe that black holes less than roughly earth mass are stable - they would evaporate off over time.

No black hole is stable without a constant in-flux of matter.

Smaller ones evaporate more quickly, but every single black hole that is not growing is shrinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[Mikenike]

15 minutes ago, Terwin said:

No black hole is stable without a constant in-flux of matter.

Smaller ones evaporate more quickly, but every single black hole that is not growing is shrinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Yes, like my brain cells.

[SOXBLOX]

On 3/7/2020 at 5:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

I'd like to get in on this with the main reason I'd prefer not to have any black hole in KSP2. Now it really is pretty simple if you think about it; it's not that much fun from a gameplay perspective. We can't portray what's going on near it because we can't real life check it out and we never will, doesn't make sense trying to portray it in game either then because it would be based on nothing more than pure speculation. I'm all for having the "visitable" systems swirling around a common center (static stars would murder the realism to death but having overly complex movement would be quite hard on the average player) however I'd rather it be a huge neutron star or someting, anything that can be observed and is worth checking out relatively close up is nicer than just a dark void and getting a "sry u ded nao" message if you stray too close. Getting chills remembering the "You cannot go that way." message on screen at the edge of the map in certain games, ugh.

...well that was that...

On a much more personal note than arguing for gameplay factors I also find black holes to be an endless source of annoyance, their supposed "infinite" mass is nothing more than a hypothesis that was formed without a soild definition of what gravity actually is in the first place. We have observed odd gravitational pull that is hard to explain but we have also observed odd "repulsion" where gravity isn't as strong as it should be and it seems something is pushing back against it, we haven't actually found a carrier particle (I know plenty of theories exist but they suffer from a substantial lack of evidence) and we can't actually get to it and measure it beyond a tiny fraction of how strong we think it should be in certain places in the universe. Since I've been doing my own investigations and calculations for many years (intermittently and with no enthusiasm but still...) I'm extremely sceptical of gravitons in their purest sense existing, what we see as gravity is overwhelmingly likely to be other forces we are familiar with acting on specific particles that are in a low energy state where they don't behave in such a way that we can observe their presence the way we normally look for them - instead they act to pull nearby matter together and appear as a kind of "virtual" gravitons. Would love to go on a major keyboardspree on the topic but that will have to wait until my most important experiments and prototypes are done, hopefully later this year barring any mysterious globally looming virus mutating and killing me or some other such amusing event happening. At any rate all I've found in the raw data everywhere indicates that gravity isn't one monolithic force - just like you can't have a magnet with only one pole, and just like a magnetic field can't get any denser than what the carrier photons permit the gravitational pull has an upper limit of how densely the carrier particles can be packed. This means a neutron star is the densest it gets and a black hole is just an even bigger neutron star with enough surface area for the carrier particles to reach far outside in great enough numbers to affect light substantially. This also makes far more sense when you look at supposed observations of "ring shaped black holes" that are thought to be black holes that somehow became neat little rings that are perfectly stable and balanced. Right. Something as outlandish as infinite density ending up in a perfectly uniform manner so it doesn't break up in two cores but stays as a stable neat donut should have been a pretty good clue that something is amiss with the whole concept. Funny how a rapidly spinning and flattened neutron star fits the observable profile perfectly instead huh? Like I said this all annoys me endlessly, there is actual observational data that directly indicates major faults in a number of widely accepted theories just like this mess. This is what happens when someone forms a hypothesis after playing for too long with too little hard data, any slight faults in the original observations multiply in each step until you end up with nothing but pure speculation.

Ehhhhhhh... Do I even have to say anything?  Seriously, you ignored one of the most fundamental axioms of nuclear physics. Neutron stars are made of neutrons not because general relativity is wrong, but because of the very well verified Pauli exclusion principle. Neutrons will not occupy the same space at the same time. A black hole, however, is a neutron star which had enough mass to create a gravitational field significant  enough to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle's repulsion. This repulsion is due to the strong nuclear force, a well documented part of quantum chromodynamics. This does not require the overthrow of general relativity, which has been verified in all its predictions to an astounding degree of accuracy.  Additionally, the graviton is postulated as the gauge boson of the gravitational force, much like the electromagnetic force has the photon. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, and the graviton is it's smallest component. No wonder it hasn't been detected yet. Finding it would pave the way to a quantum theory of gravity, such as string theory. Other theories postulate that it does not actually exist (Quantum Loop Gravity). 

 

No one says black holes have infinite mass, just infinite density. Any matter pressed into a zero-dimensional point will be infinitely dense. The singularity would not break into multiple pieces, it's gravity is holding it together. If gravity did not hold things together, Earth could not exist. It would break up.

And really, experiments and prototypes? It takes the Hubble Space Telescope to study gravity on a universal scale, and you've found a way to build a machine better than Hubble, CERN, or any other of the tools of physics, where, in your garage? Yeah, right. If anything, a serious scientist would be doing theoretical work to make testable predictions.

 

Regardless, I would be happy to see either a black hole or neutron star in game, but not more than one of either. Also want a planet with about 20 moons, or a double planet!

Edited April 27, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[SOXBLOX]

Heh. Rask and Rusk are double. Oops.

 

[Cokeblob11]

On 3/7/2020 at 6:36 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

I'd like to get in on this with the main reason I'd prefer not to have any black hole in KSP2. Now it really is pretty simple if you think about it; it's not that much fun from a gameplay perspective. We can't portray what's going on near it because we can't real life check it out and we never will, doesn't make sense trying to portray it in game either then because it would be based on nothing more than pure speculation. I'm all for having the "visitable" systems swirling around a common center (static stars would murder the realism to death but having overly complex movement would be quite hard on the average player) however I'd rather it be a huge neutron star or someting, anything that can be observed and is worth checking out relatively close up is nicer than just a dark void and getting a "sry u ded nao" message if you stray too close. Getting chills remembering the "You cannot go that way." message on screen at the edge of the map in certain games, ugh.

...well that was that...

On a much more personal note than arguing for gameplay factors I also find black holes to be an endless source of annoyance, their supposed "infinite" mass is nothing more than a hypothesis that was formed without a soild definition of what gravity actually is in the first place. We have observed odd gravitational pull that is hard to explain but we have also observed odd "repulsion" where gravity isn't as strong as it should be and it seems something is pushing back against it, we haven't actually found a carrier particle (I know plenty of theories exist but they suffer from a substantial lack of evidence) and we can't actually get to it and measure it beyond a tiny fraction of how strong we think it should be in certain places in the universe. Since I've been doing my own investigations and calculations for many years (intermittently and with no enthusiasm but still...) I'm extremely sceptical of gravitons in their purest sense existing, what we see as gravity is overwhelmingly likely to be other forces we are familiar with acting on specific particles that are in a low energy state where they don't behave in such a way that we can observe their presence the way we normally look for them - instead they act to pull nearby matter together and appear as a kind of "virtual" gravitons. Would love to go on a major keyboardspree on the topic but that will have to wait until my most important experiments and prototypes are done, hopefully later this year barring any mysterious globally looming virus mutating and killing me or some other such amusing event happening. At any rate all I've found in the raw data everywhere indicates that gravity isn't one monolithic force - just like you can't have a magnet with only one pole, and just like a magnetic field can't get any denser than what the carrier photons permit the gravitational pull has an upper limit of how densely the carrier particles can be packed. This means a neutron star is the densest it gets and a black hole is just an even bigger neutron star with enough surface area for the carrier particles to reach far outside in great enough numbers to affect light substantially. This also makes far more sense when you look at supposed observations of "ring shaped black holes" that are thought to be black holes that somehow became neat little rings that are perfectly stable and balanced. Right. Something as outlandish as infinite density ending up in a perfectly uniform manner so it doesn't break up in two cores but stays as a stable neat donut should have been a pretty good clue that something is amiss with the whole concept. Funny how a rapidly spinning and flattened neutron star fits the observable profile perfectly instead huh? Like I said this all annoys me endlessly, there is actual observational data that directly indicates major faults in a number of widely accepted theories just like this mess. This is what happens when someone forms a hypothesis after playing for too long with too little hard data, any slight faults in the original observations multiply in each step until you end up with nothing but pure speculation.

The things you see on the internet... I would suggest you do a little more reading on what general relativity is before you go trying to disprove it in your backyard.