Space telescopes in KSP 2

[mcwaffles2003]

So @PlutoISaPlanet made a thread a while ago:

I wanted to see a poll on how/what everyone feels about the topic as I personally think adding telescopes into the game would be a great addition and could be highly nuanced. Not to mention, telescopes and space go together more intimately than, in my opinion, PB&J. 

For those in favor, I think the community could get very imaginative on ways in which to implement this. So, before I put up the poll I would like to see suggestions for features so a more comprehensive list is generated before people vote.

Spaces have been included making sections and highlight mutually exclusive options like:

• Space telescopes require time to create an image based on its own characteristics (f# and sensor quality)
• Space telescope image taking is instant

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[SOXBLOX]

I will definitely be voting. Could you add an option specifically for a mission like TESS or Kepler?

[mcwaffles2003]

On 7/31/2020 at 4:06 PM, SOXBLOX said:

I will definitely be voting. Could you add an option specifically for a mission like TESS or Kepler?

Like adding telescope missions or adding TESS/Kepler as whole part telescopes?

Perhaps flesh out the idea so I and others better understand it.

Edited August 2, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[linuxgurugamer]

The "how they should be built" should also allow multiple answers. 

Other than that, looks like an interesting poll

How about adding one or two questions to see if the respondent is currently using the existing telescope modd?

[mcwaffles2003]

35 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

The "how they should be built" should also allow multiple answers. 

Other than that, looks like an interesting poll

How about adding one or two questions to see if the respondent is currently using the existing telescope modd?

3 questions max sadly

Ill revise the how they should be built part

EDIT: @linuxgurugamer how would you suggest though since the options seem mutually exclusive with each other? You cant really prefer whole parts while also preferring highly nuanced builds

Edited July 31, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[PlutoISaPlanet]

@mcwaffles2003 Thanks for breathing some life into the idea. I also think you have had some pretty cool ideas. Lets hope ksp 2 isn't just making the planets better. Telescopes like you said are synonymous with space science.

 

[mcwaffles2003]

Seriously, anybody have suggestions?Would like to hear them

[KerikBalm]

I like the idea of using telescopes to discover nearby systems. I also think the in depth telescope building could be interesting, but.... I don't really think it fits with the scope of the game.

I'd vote for whole part telescopes, that each serve a purpose (detect comets and asteroids, detect star systems with exoplants, give more information about the exoplanet before arrival, etc)

[shdwlrd]

I think you already hit all the possible options for telescopes and their uses. I personally think some options are overkill, but it's fair to ask if someone wants all the options or not.

I do think some type of telescope should be necessary for discovering and gathering information from the new solar systems. For some reason I think they won't be necessary to get to new stars though.

[mcwaffles2003]

POLL IS UP!

[Cokeblob11]

As much as I like the idea of picking and choosing the various parts of a telescope each with their own properties and trade offs, I don’t think that really fits within the rest of the gameplay. Plus it’s a little too similar to my day job :p

Id like maybe one or two telescope parts that discover new exoplanets in a manner similar to sentinel, I can fill in the details from there with my imagination.

[mcwaffles2003]

41 minutes ago, Cokeblob11 said:

As much as I like the idea of picking and choosing the various parts of a telescope each with their own properties and trade offs, I don’t think that really fits within the rest of the gameplay. Plus it’s a little too similar to my day job :p

Id like maybe one or two telescope parts that discover new exoplanets in a manner similar to sentinel, I can fill in the details from there with my imagination.

That's why I made the poll

Care if I ask what you do?

[swjr-swis]

I don't have very strong opinions on this subject either way. The word 'should' in several of the options makes me cringe a bit - I'd be quite alright with 'It'd be nice if'.

A few more telescope type parts for variety would definitely be nice to have. I'd be alright with them being single-part items, each with slightly different specs, size, mass, and specific sensor spectrum. Much like the current set of antennae. I'm ok with that being it, but bonus if they actually have some function in the career progression, like with the mod research bodies or scansat.

Either way, I would really like them to be usable from the ground as well; perhaps just the early tech ones, maybe with some detriment in sensor quality due to atmospheres. I think I'd like career progression to require some early ground-based sky observation - would make the same if not more sense than taking ground-based temperature and pressure readings, in the context of a space game.

The requirement for career progression should be entirely optional; as long as there's a setting, I don't mind if it defaults on or off. I can work a switch.

Wanting them to be lego-like component-based so we can mix and match our own telescope types sounds like a nice concept initially, but then I think of the added code and math that would be required to get all that to actually have a purpose and make it work, and I think nah... that's like the base for a whole separate game, mate (which btw, I'd probably buy and get into). We're not doing this for antenna or science instruments or even more basic things like engines... let's not single out telescopes either.

 

Now a separate game about space observation and telescope progression... who wants to jump on that niche?

[Cokeblob11]

10 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That's why I made the poll

Care if I ask what you do?

I'm a physics undergrad working in an optics research team at my university, we're building an instrument for 8-meter+ ground based telescopes that should provide much sharper views than traditional adaptive optics, hoping to test it on-sky next year!

[mcwaffles2003]

  

10 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

The word 'should' in several of the options makes me cringe a bit

Changed all "shoulds" to "wills". Is that better?

10 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Either way, I would really like them to be usable from the ground as well; perhaps just the early tech ones, maybe with some detriment in sensor quality due to atmospheres. I think I'd like career progression to require some early ground-based sky observation - would make the same if not more sense than taking ground-based temperature and pressure readings, in the context of a space game.

I think that would be cool too, you could simulate the atmosphere by just limiting the maximum angular resolution possible of the sky

 

10 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Wanting them to be lego-like component-based so we can mix and match our own telescope types sounds like a nice concept initially, but then I think of the added code and math that would be required to get all that to actually have a purpose and make it work, and I think nah... that's like the base for a whole separate game, mate (which btw, I'd probably buy and get into). We're not doing this for antenna or science instruments or even more basic things like engines... let's not single out telescopes either.

Honestly the rules for optics are pretty simple. When a camera takes a pic there are 3 main optics variables that determine the image: exposure time, aperture, and focal length. Then there are 3 main  sensor variables that determine the image: sensor gain, pixel size, sensor size. These variables can be managed simply and put together easily to simulate an image easily.

Brightness of image (needs to reach a minimum to be useful):

• Increases in exposure time linearly effect brightness
• Increases in aperture diameter quadratically increases brightness
• Increases in sensor gain linearly increases brightness

Resolution of image (needs to reach a minimum to be useful):

• Increasing aperture diameter linearly correlates with resolution
• Increasing pixel size quadratically decreases resolution
• The lowest resolution sets the images resolution

Focal length (zoom) determines size of object on the sensor. Too much focal length with not enough aperture just makes just makes a large blurry image and not enough focal length per pixel size makes sharp pictures with less detail.

Noise/image blurring (Can't exceed a maximum or becomes useless)

• Increases in sensor gain quadratically increases heat given off and heat would linearly effect image noise (mitigated with adding radiators)
• Increases in exposure time linearly increases blurring (mitigated with better tracking)

With these basic rules you can effectively simulate astrophotography perfectly. Now all that's needed is a very high resolution skybox to be referenced (or multiple overlapping skyboxes if you want to allow variance in what wavelengths are being viewed) which can stay in the background and not be displayed in game causing lag. Include the ability to track where a telescope is pointing and your done. With all this establish a minimum criterion for an image taken to be of good enough quality to complete its intended goal.

 

10 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Wanting them to be lego-like component-based so we can mix and match our own telescope types sounds like a nice concept initially, but then I think of the added code and math that would be required to get all that to actually have a purpose and make it work, and I think nah... that's like the base for a whole separate game, mate (which btw, I'd probably buy and get into). We're not doing this for antenna or science instruments or even more basic things like engines... let's not single out telescopes either.

 

Now a separate game about space observation and telescope progression... who wants to jump on that niche?

 

I feel like KSP is the right game for it though the degree of nuance is definitely up for debate. I don't see much how this could be done for antennas but this is done for science experiments already. When we send out probes/ships we detail which experiments will be on them and in what manner/orientation they are deployed during the mission. Also, just saying, we all know KSP is a game about rockets, but it's just as much about space. Discovering space is the reason we build the rockets in the first place so I think adding new ways to discover space feeds right into the game. Not to mention, a great joy from the game is "accidental learning" and the lessons taught by this directly correlate to real life knowledge that can be used by anybody with a camera who can find a somewhat dark sky. This could teach people how to take pictures of the sky with something as simple as the phone next to them practically.

 

Now am I hoping something like this is included in release? Not really, it'd be cool but it IS a lot... But WOW would it make one hell of a DLC adding a whole new swath of gameplay to the game.

24 minutes ago, Cokeblob11 said:

I'm a physics undergrad working in an optics research team at my university, we're building an instrument for 8-meter+ ground based telescopes that should provide much sharper views than traditional adaptive optics, hoping to test it on-sky next year!

That's pretty awesome man, not gunna lie I am a bit jelly. You by chance got a scope of your own?

Edited August 4, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[swjr-swis]

12 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Honestly the rules for optics are pretty simple.

I was thinking well beyond optics to be honest. Optics covers just a tiny subset of the spectrum used for space observation.

 

14 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

this is done for science experiments already. When we send out probes/ships we detail which experiments will be on them and in what manner/orientation they are deployed during the mission.

But they're still single contained parts with all functionality built in. Add the part or not, then activate and collect the result, basically. Not separate components (sensors, casings, computing hardware, etc) that can be stuck together in self-designed ways, which is what you suggest for telescopics.

 

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

But WOW would it make one hell of a DLC adding a whole new swath of gameplay to the game.

Would. Still think it would be enough scope for its own game/sim. I'd likely be in for it.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

But they're still single contained parts with all functionality built in. Add the part or not, then activate and collect the result, basically. Not separate components (sensors, casings, computing hardware, etc) that can be stuck together in self-designed ways, which is what you suggest for telescopics.

Sure but what other experiments could really do this? It's not like having to build a thermometer or accelerometer would really add anything to the game,

 

5 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Would. Still think it would be enough scope for its own game/sim. I'd likely be in for it.

Idk, I think a lot of the fun would be missed in not having to get the telescope into orbit nor being able to explore the places you find with your scope.

 

10 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

I was thinking well beyond optics to be honest. Optics covers just a tiny subset of the spectrum used for space observation.

Care to expand on what you mean then?

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Care to expand on what you mean then?

Visible light and near infrared/UV is only a tiny part of the spectrum we can and do use to observe the universe through what we colloquially call telescopes. Microwave, radio receivers, x-ray observatories, gravitational wave sensors. Many of those do not use what you would consider 'optics', certainly not in the conventional way.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

Visible light and near infrared/UV is only a tiny part of the spectrum we can and do use to observe the universe through what we colloquially call telescopes. Microwave, radio receivers, x-ray observatories, gravitational wave sensors. Many of those do not use what you would consider 'optics', certainly not in the conventional way.

When I say optics that isn't simply referring to refractors, most every other scope is a reflector and obeys the same rules as conventional vis telescopes. Radio/microwave antennas... giant cassegrains, x-ray scopes... weird ritchey chretien/cassegrain hybrids with different surface topological cross sections. Focal length and aperture all still respecting the same rules.

 

X-ray

Spoiler

radio/microwave

Spoiler

 

Though, I will say that gravity wave detectors and gamma ray detectors operate much differently. I wasn't really considering gravity wave detectors though as using those would be relatively useless and gamma ray detectors in all cases could just come as whole parts with certain stats

Edited August 4, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Cokeblob11]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You by chance got a scope of your own?

Yeah, I've had a 6" Newtonian since high school that I used to take my profile picture, constantly adding extra bits to it so its gotten a bit unwieldy to use but I still try to get out and do some imaging every once in a while. I was actually able to leverage my prior experience in astrophotography and post processing into my first position as a research assistant when I was a freshman. What about you? I'm guessing by your profile picture that you've done some astrophotography as well?

[mcwaffles2003]

18 minutes ago, Cokeblob11 said:

Yeah, I've had a 6" Newtonian since high school that I used to take my profile picture, constantly adding extra bits to it so its gotten a bit unwieldy to use but I still try to get out and do some imaging every once in a while. I was actually able to leverage my prior experience in astrophotography and post processing into my first position as a research assistant when I was a freshman. What about you? I'm guessing by your profile picture that you've done some astrophotography as well?

Yup!  have a 6" RC on a HEQ-5 and do imaging with a DSLR (cant wait to get a nice proper monochrome). That's a really nice trifid nebula by the way.

I've been trying to get my setup back to working recently and have been thinking about installing a belt drive for better tracking, lost a few necessities over the past couple years though and need to give the scope a nice collimation. Hoping to build my own really fat dob some day as well, seen videos of people with like 36"ers and can only imagine the views... the clarity and brightness must be insane to where you could probably live view nebulae with color 

Edited August 4, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Cokeblob11]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

seen videos of people with like 36"ers and can only imagine the views... the clarity and brightness must be insane to where you could probably live view nebulae with color 

I had the opportunity to look through a 36" telescope at Mcdonald observatory a year or so ago, absolutely unforgettable... M51 filled the whole field of view and looked like a photograph, I could even just about make out the relativistic jet in M87. The next night they had an eyepiece on the 2-meter research scope but it clouded out unfortunately. They sell tickets for a few nights each year so if you ever happen to be in the middle of nowhere west Texas it's totally worth it. 

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, Cokeblob11 said:

I had the opportunity to look through a 36" telescope at Mcdonald observatory a year or so ago, absolutely unforgettable... M51 filled the whole field of view and looked like a photograph, I could even just about make out the relativistic jet in M87. The next night they had an eyepiece on the 2-meter research scope but it clouded out unfortunately. They sell tickets for a few nights each year so if you ever happen to be in the middle of nowhere west Texas it's totally worth it. 

I'm ridiculously jealous and will check that out.

 

On a side note it makes me happy knowing over 90% so far would like to see some form of space telescopes taking on a larger role in this game.

[jimmymcgoochie]

I would definitely be interested in more space telescopes, but limited to infrared (sentinel type for spotting comets and asteroids), visible light (for pretty pictures and some science points, though not quite to the extent that TST does with science awarded for pictures of every body while orbiting every body- Kerbin orbit, solar orbit and orbiting other stars would do; it could also find nearby stars as the first part of going interstellar) and maybe some kind of huge multispectral contraption to find and categorise exoplanets, which would only work at a specified distance from the sun (or other stars)- a bit like research bodies but only for other solar systems.

Going down into great detail would be too much for the stock game, but would probably make for a great mod.