Filling the space between star systems with stars without planets

[Vortygont]

To make the simulator more realistic, shouldn't we add regular stars in addition to star systems with planets? I believe that if you add N star systems in a game about interstellar travel, and you will have only N stars, it will look unrealistic, unprofessional and not in line with the concept of the game
The game would feel fairer if you had more freedom to fly to different objects in the galaxy, such as that star kebler23878 over there, even if it has no planets. I believe it takes much less resources to create stars than planets because for stars we don't have to think about topography, geology, concept. You could make an autogenerator of stars along the lines of a star catalog that would randomly set radius, age, mass, type, and maybe location. Stars can have similar textures and other features because they are not as unique as planets
Perhaps in science mode, you will be added to the eyes or other bonuses for studying a star of a certain type
In my opinion, filling space with stars makes the game more realistic and similar to what you expect from such a game than just having N more systems with planets

[t_v]

I agree that stars take a lot less effort than planets to make, once you have a good framework for defining them. I personally am hoping to see a wide variety of stars and associated objects in the game - wouldn't it be fun to fly through a planetary nebula? (Although those only last for a few decades usually, and I don't know how I feel about one-time events). Having low mass stars scattered around between the big systems would also be fun, as you could slingshot off of them by passing really, really close and maybe gaining or losing a lot of speed relative to your target.

One thing I think shouldn't happen is mass produced stars, though. There are enough types of astronomical objects to fill up more than a globular cluster with each star being created in a different manner than the others^{[citation needed]} so having each type of star represented once or a few times is way more than enough, no need to go full random. Take five red dwarfs, four small protostars, four "low mass" white dwarfs, six brown dwarfs, and you have 19 low mass objects already. Even black holes, have a big one and two "low mass" ones wandering the area, and you have just doubled the number of systems with planets. Overall, I think you can get into the hundreds of stars without using a random generator by sprinkling them around, representing the common ones more and the rare ones only once (or twice, so people can stumble onto them). At that point, you might want to consider generating planets around those stars, so that players can see them rising over a horizon instead of only looking at them from space. 

But, the real question is, what does this add? A cool effect in the map view where you can see your space program among a big field of stars, a handful of really cool views and a bunch of other good ones, but beyond that? We can't go beyond light speed, so these stars don't incentivize you to develop faster ships; going 1000 ly at .8c is about as difficult as going there at .4c. You can get really good at deviating your trajectory by passing by stars, but then ultimately, there is nothing to gain by going there. Any resources you get out there will either be token items or already in the planetary systems, and if there is nowhere to land, you probably won't be able to construct anything. Maybe there are things like Bussard scoops, but even with that, you end up with a program full of space stations and a few surface bases on suspiciously close systems. The game wouldn't benefit that much by adding stars, and it would take a lot of work to add a good variety of them to even get that benefit. 

[Strawberry]

35 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

I imagine the distance between Kerbol and Deb Deb will be unrealistically small, similar to how the planets in Kerbal are unusually small and heavy. Otherwise, players would never get there, even at maximum warp speed. I'm not sure any more stars could fit in there (realistically). It would be fun to attempt slingshot maneuvers but I'm unsure if this provides much benefit on that scale.

 

There's going to be interstellar engines, theres no need for a lessened scale as you can design those engines around that greater distance. Also the devs have already said it would be interstellar distances.

 

I feel like it would be disappointing to spend all the time building a rocket to explore a new star system, then when you arrive theres nothing there and youre stuck. I dont see what this adds gameplay wise besides maybe adding gravity assists (and I dont think those would be useful for interstellar travel).

[Rutabaga22]

Y'know why these interstellar distances won't be real scale? Because if they have real scale distance they need real scale engines, which then would make them dwarf the normal parts. They should just keep everything stock scale. I get they want people to feel interstellar distance they can make the distances 2.5x stock scale so the engines are perfectly balanced.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Vortygont said:

To make the simulator more realistic, shouldn't we add regular stars in addition to star systems with planets? I believe that if you add N star systems in a game about interstellar travel, and you will have only N stars, it will look unrealistic, unprofessional and not in line with the concept of the game
The game would feel fairer if you had more freedom to fly to different objects in the galaxy, such as that star kebler23878 over there, even if it has no planets. I believe it takes much less resources to create stars than planets because for stars we don't have to think about topography, geology, concept. You could make an autogenerator of stars along the lines of a star catalog that would randomly set radius, age, mass, type, and maybe location. Stars can have similar textures and other features because they are not as unique as planets
Perhaps in science mode, you will be added to the eyes or other bonuses for studying a star of a certain type
In my opinion, filling space with stars makes the game more realistic and similar to what you expect from such a game than just having N more systems with planets

Gameplay and technical limitations trump realism.

[Lithobrake]

3 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Y'know why these interstellar distances won't be real scale? Because if they have real scale distance they need real scale engines, which then would make them dwarf the normal parts. They should just keep everything stock scale. I get they want people to feel interstellar distance they can make the distances 2.5x stock scale so the engines are perfectly balanced.

 

Tom Vinitas explicitly said that the "Crucible" interstellar engine was bigger than the entire VAB. In the same video, Nate Simpson says "You look at a map of the local area of the galaxy, and you see, like in the real world,  closest star is about 4 light years away. You have no idea how far a lightyear actually is.  This is one of the profound lessons this game is going to teach to you". Timestamps 0:00 and 1:16.

 

 

6 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

I imagine the distance between Kerbol and Deb Deb will be unrealistically small, similar to how the planets in Kerbal are unusually small and heavy. Otherwise, players would never get there, even at maximum warp speed. I'm not sure any more stars could fit in there (realistically). It would be fun to attempt slingshot maneuvers but I'm unsure if this provides much benefit on that scale.

 

4 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Well in KSP the engines are to scale but the planets are smaller, which reduces the time spent achieving orbit, and this is much better. I tried the real size solar system and orbital circularization burns take too long, and become boring. So it's possible they will take the same approach with by Deb Deb relatively close to Kerbol, to reduce the travel time. I'm unfamiliar with these future tech engines but even at a distance of 1 light year this will take a long time to travel, again unsure what the speeds will be like but if players have to wait 30 real minutes to get there while at maximum warp speed it would be too long, and in terms of gameplay there is no benefit to putting them far away either, it would also make the intercept maneuver more difficult.

They can increase the maximum time-warp speeds available to players. You guys realize that, right?

 

6 hours ago, t_v said:

 We can't go beyond light speed, so these stars don't incentivize you to develop faster ships; going 1000 ly at .8c is about as difficult as going there at .4c. 

This is why I think the devs should add some form of life-support as a dificulty option after launch. As someone who's played around a lot with Kerbalism, it adds a ton to the game, but might not be for every player. I think it should come with the colony update.

 

At any rate, I don't see a point to making a bunch of empty stars that players will have no reason to visit. Development is a zero sum game; they should be focused on adding features that make sense and add something to the game.

[magnemoe]

Mind that an kerbin year is shorter, think only 40% of a normal year so a kerbal light year will also be shorter. 
Who also ignores that speed of light in KSP appears to be much faster  

[Vortygont]

6 hours ago, Lithobrake said:

 

Tom Vinitas explicitly said that the "Crucible" interstellar engine was bigger than the entire VAB. In the same video, Nate Simpson says "You look at a map of the local area of the galaxy, and you see, like in the real world,  closest star is about 4 light years away. You have no idea how far a lightyear actually is.  This is one of the profound lessons this game is going to teach to you". Timestamps 0:00 and 1:16.

 

 

They can increase the maximum time-warp speeds available to players. You guys realize that, right?

 

This is why I think the devs should add some form of life-support as a dificulty option after launch. As someone who's played around a lot with Kerbalism, it adds a ton to the game, but might not be for every player. I think it should come with the colony update.

 

At any rate, I don't see a point to making a bunch of empty stars that players will have no reason to visit. Development is a zero sum game; they should be focused on adding features that make sense and add something to the game.

I think that stars would be needed to make gravity maneuvers near them at the stage of development, when you do not have hydrogen metal engines and other very advanced technologies. It would probably be interesting to see challenges with interstellar flights on low tech

Although such flights could be useful for studying deep space and the structure of the universe in general. Or imagine that the desired and promising star is still relatively far away and you don't know how to fly such distances yet. Wouldn't it be easier to practice with a notional Barnard star that would be relatively closer? This way you can quickly practice the technology

There doesn't have to be a goal, just something to fill the space so as not to ruin the plausibility of the simulation and give the player an experience, maybe comparable to reality

[magnemoe]

Is it not assumed almost all stars will have planets, perhaps with the exceptions with the very massive ones  who are rare? And perhaps stuff like close binary stars? 
We  can not detect many of the planets because its hard to detect planets far from a star especially if planet is small. 

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Maybe someone else can do the math, as to what fraction of light speed these new engines can achieve, and what kind of timewarp would be required to bring a trip of multiple light years down into an acceptable amount (such as 5 minutes real time), and further, whether this would result in a stable simulation, since they claim they will be killing the kraken and also simulating this trip within the standard physics system

15 seconds X 30 years = 14,200,000,000x time acceleration

In English, KSP 2 would have to support time acceleration factors in the ballbark of 10-20 billion to reduce decade-long interstellar trips to reasonable (sub-minute) lengths.

[Bej Kerman]

7 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

15 seconds X 30 years = 14,200,000,000x time acceleration

In English, KSP 2 would have to support time acceleration factors in the ballbark of 10-20 billion to reduce decade-long interstellar trips to reasonable (sub-minute) lengths.

Well it will be interesting to see how they solve this problem, I think the nearest star will have to be very close.

May I ask what said problem is?

[adsii1970]

2 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Well it will be interesting to see how they solve this problem, I think the nearest star will have to be very close.

How so? Kerbal Space Program is a game based on fictitious creatures with their own space program within some distant galaxy. Who is to say their home star system is in a spiral galaxy arm as ours is?

For reference, our location in the Milky Way, marked as "The Sun":

Now my comment is purely based on the hypothetical that Kerbol, (the "sun" that Kerbin orbits around) is located within the Milky Way or similar galaxy. We know our own galaxy is made of stars, some of which are in clusters more dense than our own location. There's nothing to say that Kerbin isn't located closer to the galactic center or the thicker part of a galactic arm where the number of stars is more dense. Kerbol simply could have more galactic neighbors than our own.

With that said, I am not saying it will be a simple afternoon drive to the local red super giant. I agree, there may be closer stars in the galactic neighborhood of Kerbol, and most certainly will require some serious time-warping if you expect to get there within a couple of hours of real-time game play (or HyperEdit for KSP2 ). However, I am not going to have any expectations of anything but having fun and figuring out things when the game is finally here.

Now, if you were to ask me for a wish list of stellar objects, I'd like to see some nebulae added to the game.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 11/13/2022 at 4:16 PM, t_v said:

 wouldn't it be fun to fly through a planetary nebula?

extremely

On 11/13/2022 at 4:16 PM, t_v said:

(Although those only last for a few decades usually, and I don't know how I feel about one-time events).

but the crab nebula is nearly 1000 years old...

[Bej Kerman]

On 11/14/2022 at 8:59 PM, adsii1970 said:

Now, if you were to ask me for a wish list of stellar objects, I'd like to see some nebulae added to the game.

If KSP 2 had a nebula in it, it would probably encapsulate the entire group of stars the game includes

[t_v]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

extremely

but the crab nebula is nearly 1000 years old...

Right, I got the scale off by three orders of magnitude! I must have been thinking about something else that dissipates relatively quickly, like carbon or neon burn times. Planetary nebulae still last a relatively short time astronomically speaking, and the question is whether we should include effects that dissipate "quickly" enough to be noticeable in game, and then go away forever. Thanks for correcting me, I would have gone on with figures mixed up, which would not have been good. 

[mcwaffles2003]

19 hours ago, t_v said:

Right, I got the scale off by three orders of magnitude! I must have been thinking about something else that dissipates relatively quickly, like carbon or neon burn times. Planetary nebulae still last a relatively short time astronomically speaking, and the question is whether we should include effects that dissipate "quickly" enough to be noticeable in game, and then go away forever. Thanks for correcting me, I would have gone on with figures mixed up, which would not have been good. 

All good man I love the stuff. Also, to your original point, even though they are chronologically rare events, I think they should be included if the devs are willing. KSP doesn't necessarily need to adhere to reality's statistics for event occurrence. A large point of the game is for us to see the variety more so than the statistical rarity/commonality so we have an abundance to learn as opposed to the elite dangerous type of seeing the virtually same system over and over and rarely seeing something new and cool.  Not saying that is a bad thing, but surrounding a diamond by a bunch of dirt certainly makes it seem more valuable than a diamond in a bowl with a sapphire, a ruby, an emerald, an opal, etc...

20 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

If KSP 2 had a nebula in it, it would probably encapsulate the entire group of stars the game includes

depends on the type, but for most, yes

[Bej Kerman]

23 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

depends on the type, but for most, yes

May I ask what types wouldn't expand to encompass light years within the mere centuries that saves may last in KSP 2?

[mcwaffles2003]

14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

May I ask what types wouldn't expand to encompass light years within the mere centuries that saves may last in KSP 2?

Planetary nebula can remain smaller. For instance, my favorite one is the twin jet nebula and its over 1000 yrs old and is 0.70 Ly wide.

I by no means want to imply that they are small, but planetary nebula can be small enough to notice some structure from pretty close up and have nice presents to visit in their centers like black holes, pulsars, neutron stars, and dwarfs. Could make an interesting endgame type of exploration if one were like 5 ly away and 0.07 ly across (cause of kerbal 1/10th scale).

[t_v]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, to your original point, even though they are chronologically rare events, I think they should be included if the devs are willing. KSP doesn't necessarily need to adhere to reality's statistics for event occurrence

I was more referring to the one-time nature for a specific star. Knowing now that nebulae can last thousands to tens of thousands of years, most players will not experience a nebula disappearing for shorter playthroughs. But for those people who keep playing in a world for a very long time, we run into a few options.

First, don't simulate the dissipation of a planetary nebula. It saves dev time and makes it so that the nebula system stays around and long-time players can still experience it. However, it might make people think that planetary nebulae last for a long time (millions of years or more). 

Second, have the nebula re-explode after it fades out. I am highly against this as planetary nebulae (of meaningful size) aren't recurring events (as far as I know), and making people think that they are would be pretty bad, especially since you would be using up developer time to make that happen. 

Third, have the nebula fade out and then not come back. This is the most realistic option and I would like to see it, as it gives a sense of time in a playthrough. However, once the nebula is gone, it leaves behind a white dwarf and the player is left with no planetary nebula. You can have several low mass stars which die in quick succession to continue having nebula, but eventually they will run out. So the question is, should we include events in the game that will eventually not happen anymore?

[mcwaffles2003]

58 minutes ago, t_v said:

First, don't simulate the dissipation of a planetary nebula. It saves dev time and makes it so that the nebula system stays around and long-time players can still experience it. However, it might make people think that planetary nebulae last for a long time (millions of years or more). 

I like this one, I doubt many playthroughs will get past 10,000 yrs or even close to it.

59 minutes ago, t_v said:

Second, have the nebula re-explode after it fades out. I am highly against this as planetary nebulae (of meaningful size) aren't recurring events (as far as I know), and making people think that they are would be pretty bad, especially since you would be using up developer time to make that happen.

Type Ia supernova aren't singular events, they repeatedly detonate every time they accumulate enough mass.

[Bej Kerman]

24 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

1 hour ago, t_v said:

Second, have the nebula re-explode after it fades out. I am highly against this as planetary nebulae (of meaningful size) aren't recurring events (as far as I know), and making people think that they are would be pretty bad, especially since you would be using up developer time to make that happen.

Type Ia supernova aren't singular events, they repeatedly detonate every time they accumulate enough mass.

Where'd you read that?

[t_v]

35 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Type Ia supernova aren't singular events, they repeatedly detonate every time they accumulate enough mass.

You mean recurrent novae? A type 1a supernova happens when a white dwarf surpasses the Chandrasekhar limit and transforms into a neutron star, and it only happens once for a given white dwarf. Additionally, supernovae are so violent that the remnants they produce emit light peaking in the X-ray region, and while a supernova remnant can appear similar to a planetary nebula, the two are different.

I'm trying to see whether recurrent novae produce planetary nebulas, but their periods can last from 10 to 100,000 years so we might not have enough data. Speculating a bit, I don't think that novae produce nebulas, because the white dwarf only accretes enough mass to begin fusion again and there isn't enough hydrogen floating around the core to expand into a nebula. 

[GoldForest]

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I like this one, I doubt many playthroughs will get past 10,000 yrs or even close to it.

Type Ia supernova aren't singular events, they repeatedly detonate every time they accumulate enough mass.

 

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Where'd you read that?

I would also like to know. From my understanding, a supernova can only happen once due to the star becoming a white dwarf afterwards or worse. 

You can have a maximum of three supernovas in the case of a binary star system from my understanding. One star goes, the second goes and then the final supernova happens when the two white dwarves collide. 

Type Ia supernova - Wikipedia

Quote

Single degenerate progenitors[edit]

One model for the formation of this category of supernova is a close binary star system. The progenitor binary system consists of main sequence stars, with the primary possessing more mass than the secondary. Being greater in mass, the primary is the first of the pair to evolve onto the asymptotic giant branch, where the star's envelope expands considerably. If the two stars share a common envelope then the system can lose significant amounts of mass, reducing the angular momentum, orbital radius and period. After the primary has degenerated into a white dwarf, the secondary star later evolves into a red giant and the stage is set for mass accretion onto the primary. During this final shared-envelope phase, the two stars spiral in closer together as angular momentum is lost. The resulting orbit can have a period as brief as a few hours.^[20][21] If the accretion continues long enough, the white dwarf may eventually approach the Chandrasekhar limit.

The white dwarf companion could also accrete matter from other types of companions, including a subgiant or (if the orbit is sufficiently close) even a main sequence star. The actual evolutionary process during this accretion stage remains uncertain, as it can depend both on the rate of accretion and the transfer of angular momentum to the white dwarf companion.^[22]

It has been estimated that single degenerate progenitors account for no more than 20% of all Type Ia supernovae.

 

[mcwaffles2003]

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Where'd you read that?

  Originally learned about it in my astronomy class in college I think

10 hours ago, t_v said:

You mean recurrent novae? A type 1a supernova happens when a white dwarf surpasses the Chandrasekhar limit and transforms into a neutron star, and it only happens once for a given white dwarf. Additionally, supernovae are so violent that the remnants they produce emit light peaking in the X-ray region, and while a supernova remnant can appear similar to a planetary nebula, the two are different.

Yes, my mistake. Both happen when a parasite white dwarf star leeches matter from a nearby giant and I mixed up the two in my head. Though looking more into it it seems modern concensus is the Chandrasekhar limit isn't actually reached and the star is destroyed by the explosion with the exception of white dwarves of certain compositions.  That's just from a quick look over a wiki article though, so if you have other info lemme know

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

Spoiler

Consensus model[edit]

The Type Ia supernova is a subcategory in the Minkowski–Zwicky supernova classification scheme, which was devised by German-American astronomer Rudolph Minkowski and Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky.^[9] There are several means by which a supernova of this type can form, but they share a common underlying mechanism. Theoretical astronomers long believed the progenitor star for this type of supernova is a white dwarf, and empirical evidence for this was found in 2014 when a Type Ia supernova was observed in the galaxy Messier 82.^[10] When a slowly-rotating^[2] carbon–oxygen white dwarf accretes matter from a companion, it can exceed the Chandrasekhar limit of about 1.44 M_☉, beyond which it can no longer support its weight with electron degeneracy pressure.^[11] In the absence of a countervailing process, the white dwarf would collapse to form a neutron star, in an accretion-induced non-ejective process,^[12] as normally occurs in the case of a white dwarf that is primarily composed of magnesium, neon, and oxygen.^[13]

The current view among astronomers who model Type Ia supernova explosions, however, is that this limit is never actually attained and collapse is never initiated. Instead, the increase in pressure and density due to the increasing weight raises the temperature of the core,^[3] and as the white dwarf approaches about 99% of the limit,^[14] a period of convection ensues, lasting approximately 1,000 years.^[15] At some point in this simmering phase, a deflagration flame front is born, powered by carbon fusion. The details of the ignition are still unknown, including the location and number of points where the flame begins.^[16] Oxygen fusion is initiated shortly thereafter, but this fuel is not consumed as completely as carbon.^[17]

Once fusion begins, the temperature of the white dwarf increases. A main sequence star supported by thermal pressure can expand and cool which automatically regulates the increase in thermal energy. However, degeneracy pressure is independent of temperature; white dwarfs are unable to regulate temperature in the manner of normal stars, so they are vulnerable to runaway fusion reactions. The flare accelerates dramatically, in part due to the Rayleigh–Taylor instability and interactions with turbulence. It is still a matter of considerable debate whether this flare transforms into a supersonic detonation from a subsonic deflagration.^[15][18]

Regardless of the exact details of how the supernova ignites, it is generally accepted that a substantial fraction of the carbon and oxygen in the white dwarf fuses into heavier elements within a period of only a few seconds,^[17] with the accompanying release of energy increasing the internal temperature to billions of degrees. The energy released (1–2×10⁴⁴ J)^[4] is more than sufficient to unbind the star; that is, the individual particles making up the white dwarf gain enough kinetic energy to fly apart from each other. The star explodes violently and releases a shock wave in which matter is typically ejected at speeds on the order of 5,000–20,000 km/s, roughly 6% of the speed of light. The energy released in the explosion also causes an extreme increase in luminosity. The typical visual absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae is M_v = −19.3 (about 5 billion times brighter than the Sun), with little variation.^[15]

The theory of this type of supernova is similar to that of novae, in which a white dwarf accretes matter more slowly and does not approach the Chandrasekhar limit. In the case of a nova, the infalling matter causes a hydrogen fusion surface explosion that does not disrupt the star.^[15]

Type Ia supernovae differ from Type II supernovae, which are caused by the cataclysmic explosion of the outer layers of a massive star as its core collapses, powered by release of gravitational potential energy via neutrino emission.^[19]

10 hours ago, t_v said:

I'm trying to see whether recurrent novae produce planetary nebulas, but their periods can last from 10 to 100,000 years so we might not have enough data. Speculating a bit, I don't think that novae produce nebulas, because the white dwarf only accretes enough mass to begin fusion again and there isn't enough hydrogen floating around the core to expand into a nebula. 

They produce nova remnants instead of planetary nebulae but visually they should be somewhat similar as both are just pockets of glowing gas in space. I think nebulae typically have more hydrogen/helium than supernova remnants.

Spoiler

vs

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by mcwaffles2003

[jimmymcgoochie]

Every body in the game should be a destination in its own right, not just something you fly past without stopping because there's nothing there bar a convenient gravity assist. Stars without planets might be common in reality but they'd add nothing to KSP2 and could be detrimental if you can only see planets around other stars at close range- what use is building a huge and expensive interstellar ship only to find out there's nothing there when it arrives decades/centuries later?