A Petition to the Dev Team: The Outer Planets

[RayneCloud]

Some of you, might remember, a very very long time ago when I was a part of the KSP 1 team as a community manager that I spoke about and petitioned my co-workers to add analogs to Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as a means of creating deep space challenges that Jool and its moons simply couldn't support. Now, I was shut down for a multitude of reasons, mostly that adding analogs to the outer planets and some of their most well known moons would have the following impacts,

• Memory Issues (KSP was 32 bit at the time)
• We'd need to rebalance stock parts and create new parts
• Extended Tech tree requirements

These among a few other issues were why I was shut down, but for those of you here back in the day you might remember one @NovaSilisko talking about new planets.. Such as,

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Gas_planet_2

And a proposed Gas Planet 3 , with moons and changes to the kerbolar system.

So, why bring this up now with KSP 2? Because I feel that KSP 2 could really benefit from having a true Solar System full planet catalog of analogs to explore and conquer before deep space and interstellar travel. That and lets be honest, OPM is one of the most popular planet mods ever made for KSP1. With a 64bit game, engine updates, etc, adding in analogs for the big 3 and pluto and some new moons could prepare players for true deep space missions before finally reaching out in to the great beyond.

So please, at least, consider it?  

Edited January 8 by RayneCloud

[The Aziz]

That will just drag staying inside the starting system for even longer without bringing much novelty. What's in it for the players, aside from even longer flight time? After Jool we've conquered a gas giant, an atmospheric moon, a very big moon, a very small moon with weird terrain, an icy moon with liquid lake and two different hemispheres thanks to tidal lock, and a very remote icy world. Next step being interstellar is better from gameplay perspective (a sense of progression? A leap forward?) than more of the same but further out.

Edited January 8 by The Aziz

[RayneCloud]

I simply don't agree, not even remotely. 

We're talking about teaching the player how to set up and prepare true deep space missions before leaving the local solar system as missions to outer gas giants and pluto analogs are even harder to plan in modded KSP1 using KSRSS/OPM/RSS, than Jupiter/Jool and it's moons are. Have you ever even given it any consideration at all?

Edited January 8 by RayneCloud

[PDCWolf]

Whilst I agree with GP2 and beyond (an actually well made asteroid system that can be used to create Oort cloud bodies too please?), there's also a harsh reality that is new players not leaving the vicinity of Kerbin. Even if KSP2 has much more incentive, we still don't know if that's changed, or will change. Plus it's not like most planets aren't barren an uninsteresting already save for hand-planted "discoverables" strewn around. What makes more planets not just be more barren wastelands, which we already have plenty of?

[RayneCloud]

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Whilst I agree with GP2 and beyond (an actually well made asteroid system that can be used to create Oort cloud bodies too please?), there's also a harsh reality that is new players not leaving the vicinity of Kerbin. Even if KSP2 has much more incentive, we still don't know if that's changed, or will change. Plus it's not like most planets aren't barren an uninsteresting already save for hand-planted "discoverables" strewn around. What makes more planets not just be more barren wastelands, which we already have plenty of?

So, why have interstellar at all then? Because that's just more "barren planets" to go visit for, I dunno, no reason what so ever? If we're going by that logic then every planet is a boring barren rock with no reason to go to it, so why have a space game about going to those places, there's nothing there yeah?  No resources, no science, no mission and vehicle design challenges, no discoverable to explore, no landscapes and amazing vistas to see, no reason really to go to space or do things in space because it's all barren planets. 

Ya know, IRL, there's 95 celestial objects around Jupiter (That we know of), I'm sure there's no reason for us to go to any of them. Uninteresting barren lifeless rocks that they are. *shrug*

Edited January 8 by RayneCloud

[RayneCloud]

I mean, sorry for being a bit snippy here... but that whole "they're barren rocks with nothing on them" argument just really grinds me up because it's a non argument for space flight games like KSP, etc.  It's also used to shut down space flight IRL. "Why go there? It's barren and empty."

Nasa estimates there's something like 290 celestials around most major planets and dwarf planets in our solar system,

• 95 around Jupiter
• 146 at Saturn
• 27 at Uranus
• 14 at Neptune
• 5 orbitals around dwarf planet pluto

This type of argument means, we never go to any of them. Because there's just, "no reason, they're all barren rocks" There's nothing to learn, nothing to do, no advancements to be made and that's the same thing here in KSP...

I don't play Stock KSP 1 without OPM, because going out past Jool, out in to the deep solar system, requires even more engineering in terms of mission planning, vehicle design, etc. For me personally, tho I suppose someone else will just jump in here and go "I play OPM stock and can get to pluto with nothing but 1 engine you're a noob" to shut me down on that, but oh well. 

Edited January 8 by RayneCloud

[rjbvre]

I would love this, one of my wishlist items is new bodies in the Kerbal system that are released as a surprise on day 1. Agree fully about the sense of discovery and that the chance to explore new bodies is a key motivation for a lot of players, not sure why people on here are so willing to disregard that.

There are a couple issues with modeling more of the solar system though. If we add more gas giants, Eeloo's orbit wouldn't fit as a Pluto analogue without being changed. As stated above it should also probably make sense in terms of gameplay progression: what variety would they add to the game before going interstellar that going to Jool wouldn't provide, and would visiting them be the intended path before going interstellar?

If gas giants don't make sense, I think analogues to Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects would be fun. I really enjoyed the KSP dlc that had you launch a telescope to discover smaller bodies to go interact with. An Oumuamua analog would be really cool too. It could be a really hard mission to intercept, but would yield a ton of science points.

[The Aziz]

13 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:

going out past Jool, out in to the deep solar system, requires even more engineering in terms of mission planning, vehicle design, etc.

Other than putting more dv in the transfer/arrival stage and perhaps using Jool for gravity slingshot to cut some years from flight time - what more is needed?

[rjbvre]

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Other than putting more dv in the transfer/arrival stage and perhaps using Jool for gravity slingshot to cut some years from flight time - what more is needed?

Electricity generation/storage with much less sunlight, possibly better antennas for communication. Depending on the properties of the bodies there could be new challenges to explore it (small sphere of influence to target, a Uranus analogue with axial tilt, icy bodies with off gasing). All of this could be rewarded with increasing science points

[Periple]

I'd love to have outer planets, and also a Kuiper belt and Oort cloud!

[RayneCloud]

OPM changes where Eeloo is located @rjbvre - 

Cause yeah, it wouldn't make sense for it to stay where it is. Also, I suggest trying OPM in KSP 1 with nothing but stock parts and see if  the whole "there's no extra challenge or considerations" sentiment from others is correct or not

 

[The Aziz]

9 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

Electricity generation/storage with much less sunlight, possibly better antennas for communication.

Anywhere past Dres the solar panels are barely effective so fuel cells or nuclear generators are a must, no difference here. As for the antennas, pretty sure the best ones we have are enough to cover the entire system and more. And the extendable ones aren't particularly big or heavy either.

19 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

Depending on the properties of the bodies there could be new challenges to explore it (small sphere of influence to target, a Uranus analogue with axial tilt, icy bodies with off gasing). All of this could be rewarded with increasing science points

We can have the same challenges in other star systems instead, since the whole point is to go beyond.

[rjbvre]

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Anywhere past Dres the solar panels are barely effective so fuel cells or nuclear generators are a must, no difference here. As for the antennas, pretty sure the best ones we have are enough to cover the entire system and more. And the extendable ones aren't particularly big or heavy either.

Incorrect. Solar panels and batteries are still a viable and sometimes the better option. It depends on the mission. Do you need short bursts of lots of power? Solar panels and batteries are probably better. Moderate amounts of steady generation? Fuel cells, or if you spend the research points RTGs. Also now there's an RTG time limit which could penalize taking too long to get to further destinations. IRL there are probes going to Jupiter that will rely on solar panels (ESA's Juice and NASA's Europa clipper). Antennas cover the current system, but this would make the system larger.

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

We can have the same challenges in other star systems instead, since the whole point is to go beyond.

That won't be the same challenge though since it will be after you unlock interstellar and other more advanced parts.

Edited January 8 by rjbvre
Edited to add rtg time limits

[The Aziz]

11 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

IRL there are probes going to Jupiter that will rely on solar panels (ESA's Juice and NASA's Europa clipper).

They aren't using lots of their charge on performing experiments or transmitting the data. Solar powered rover on Tylo will run out of juice after a minute.

14 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

That won't be the same challenge though since it will be after you unlock interstellar and other more advanced parts

No, that will be a bigger challenge (good!) Because not only you'd need to get there first, which requires a lot more than just bigger rocket and few more parts with slightly better stats, but also you'll be starting pretty much from scratch in target system. With no VAB to build stuff, no launchpad to launch from, only your Interstellar ship in orbit and whatever you send down to the surface of chosen body.

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, RayneCloud said:

So, why have interstellar at all then? Because that's just more "barren planets" to go visit for, I dunno, no reason what so ever? If we're going by that logic then every planet is a boring barren rock with no reason to go to it, so why have a space game about going to those places, there's nothing there yeah?  No resources, no science, no mission and vehicle design challenges, no discoverable to explore, no landscapes and amazing vistas to see, no reason really to go to space or do things in space because it's all barren planets. 

Ya know, IRL, there's 95 celestial objects around Jupiter (That we know of), I'm sure there's no reason for us to go to any of them. Uninteresting barren lifeless rocks that they are. *shrug*

And I actually agree with not seeing much point to interstellar. However, I will say that interstellar transfers should at least offer a different mechanism for spaceflight than normal Hohmann transfers between planets.

That the planets are already barren rocks shouldn't be a justification to add more uninteresting barren rocks, it should actually be a reason to put the work in to make them interesting, varied, and worthwhile to visit.

1 hour ago, RayneCloud said:

I mean, sorry for being a bit snippy here... but that whole "they're barren rocks with nothing on them" argument just really grinds me up because it's a non argument for space flight games like KSP, etc.  It's also used to shut down space flight IRL. "Why go there? It's barren and empty."

Nasa estimates there's something like 290 celestials around most major planets and dwarf planets in our solar system,

• 95 around Jupiter
• 146 at Saturn
• 27 at Uranus
• 14 at Neptune
• 5 orbitals around dwarf planet pluto

This type of argument means, we never go to any of them. Because there's just, "no reason, they're all barren rocks" There's nothing to learn, nothing to do, no advancements to be made and that's the same thing here in KSP...

I don't play Stock KSP 1 without OPM, because going out past Jool, out in to the deep solar system, requires even more engineering in terms of mission planning, vehicle design, etc. For me personally, tho I suppose someone else will just jump in here and go "I play OPM stock and can get to pluto with nothing but 1 engine you're a noob" to shut me down on that, but oh well. 

I make no connection between the argument in KSP and real spaceflight, however IRL even barren rocks can tell us a lot of things that help a myriad of disciplines from geography to chemistry, biology, astrophysics and everything inbetween. In KSP not only can't you represent that, but also the way the game is actually emphasizes how empty and barren those worlds are.

in KSP, what makes a landing on Gilly different from one on Pol and Bop? Maybe the color of the terrain, one of them having the Kraken, and now whatever discoverables are out there. Other than that, once you did one there's almost nothing to gain from landing on any of the other two besides completionism.

[RayneCloud]

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And I actually agree with not seeing much point to interstellar. However, I will say that interstellar transfers should at least offer a different mechanism for spaceflight than normal Hohmann transfers between planets.

That the planets are already barren rocks shouldn't be a justification to add more uninteresting barren rocks, it should actually be a reason to put the work in to make them interesting, varied, and worthwhile to visit.

I make no connection between the argument in KSP and real spaceflight, however IRL even barren rocks can tell us a lot of things that help a myriad of disciplines from geography to chemistry, biology, astrophysics and everything inbetween. In KSP not only can't you represent that, but also the way the game is actually emphasizes how empty and barren those worlds are.

in KSP, what makes a landing on Gilly different from one on Pol and Bop? Maybe the color of the terrain, one of them having the Kraken, and now whatever discoverables are out there. Other than that, once you did one there's almost nothing to gain from landing on any of the other two besides completionism.

So, why not just have KSP be kerbin and the mun and nothing else?

[hatterson]

Given the parts available to us right now, even without including thing related to colonial refueling that will come in the future. I'm not really seeing much of a jump in difficulty between something like a Tylo lander or Eeloo mission and an outer planet.

The biggest change would really be making solar panels useless so forcing you to rely on RTGs or other generation.

I definitely think it would be cool to have a more populated system, but the truth is that a large majority of KSP players won't exhaust the current system as is and a new system has far more draw than a planet further out.

Feels a lot more like a planet mod is the best place for stuff like this as opposed to in the base game.

Edited January 8 by hatterson

[rjbvre]

40 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

They aren't using lots of their charge on performing experiments or transmitting the data. Solar powered rover on Tylo will run out of juice after a minute.

They will absolutely be using lots of their charge on scientific instruments and antennas. The Tylo rover is a great example. RTG is absolutely the right choice for it. On the other hand, early in my current exploration playthrough I saw that I had some great transfer windows coming up for Jool and Eeloo. I figured I'd make some probes for flybys/landers, but RTGs were way too far down the r&d path (which imo should be changed), and fuel cells and tanks would weigh too much. Solar panels and batteries were the right choice for that mission, and I got a ton of early game points.

47 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

No, that will be a bigger challenge (good!) Because not only you'd need to get there first, which requires a lot more than just bigger rocket and few more parts with slightly better stats, but also you'll be starting pretty much from scratch in target system. With no VAB to build stuff, no launchpad to launch from, only your Interstellar ship in orbit and whatever you send down to the surface of chosen body.

I agree completely, but one challenge doesn't preclude the other. 

22 minutes ago, hatterson said:

Given the parts available to us right now, even without including thing related to colonial refueling that will come in the future. I'm not really seeing much of a jump in difficulty between something like a Tylo lander or Eeloo mission and an out planet.

The biggest change would really be making solar panels useless so forcing you to rely on RTGs or other generation.

Imagine if a Uranus analogue was added. Its axial tilt and moon's orbits are nearly 90 degrees relative to the plane of the solar system, with some moons also orbiting retrograde. Trying to plan a trip to one of it's moons would be much tougher than Eeloo. Not only would you need to time your launch for a Hohmann transfer, but you would also need to either time your arrival to enter the same orbital plane as the moon, or carry a lot of extra deltaV for the correction. Double this difficulty if you plan on returning. This would also have the ticking clock of RTG's running out of juice or needing even more fuel for fuel cells.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

I actually think that the barren rocks are often pretty and fun to look at, and lots of fun to get to and land on - some Breaking Ground “science” experiments and resource exploration and extraction stuff would be really great.  IMHO it’s “because it’s there”, not “because there are puppies, theme parks, and all the Froot Loops we can eat”.

Some new planets in the Kerbolar system would be fun, but with Interstellar coming down the pike and some really wild CBs promised, I’m not hugely fussed either way.

[KUAR]

For me, the fun is about discovery. I don't think we need more planets, but I regret that we can see the current ones as clear as day from the KSC, mission control and the tracking station.

I wish that we started out not knowing anything more than Kerbin, Kerbol, Minmus and Mun. Everything else needs to be discovered. We can get a rough, grey-ish indication from a space telescope; we can get more information by flybys; more by putting a scansat into polar orbit.

That way, every mission adds something to our picture of the cosmos.

The concept could be extended to Interstellar. Rather than identifying a specific planet, perhaps we only know that there's a star our there. We need to send a probe to figure out what planets there are and their orbits, and whether they have atmospheres.

Edited January 8 by KUAR

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, RayneCloud said:

So, why not just have KSP be kerbin and the mun and nothing else?

Well, that was the experience for what the previous dev team found to be the majority of players.

Again, I'm not against the idea of adding more planets, but I think the effort would be much better invested first in giving players reasons to go there other than lame progression locks and blurbs of text.

[The Aziz]

19 minutes ago, KUAR said:

wish that we started out not knowing anything more than Kerbin, Kerbol, Minmus and Mun. Everything else needs to be discovered. We can get a rough, grey-ish indication from a space telescope; we can get more information by flybys; more by putting a scansat into polar orbit.

Photos from our space telescope:

 

Neptune was discovered in 1846, more than a century before first rockets reached Earth orbit. 

23 minutes ago, KUAR said:

The concept could be extended to Interstellar. Rather than identifying a specific planet, perhaps we only know that there's a star our there. We need to send a probe to figure out what planets there are and their orbits, and whether they have atmospheres.

Last time I read about it, that was planned.

[hatterson]

24 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

Imagine if a Uranus analogue was added. Its axial tilt and moon's orbits are nearly 90 degrees relative to the plane of the solar system, with some moons also orbiting retrograde. Trying to plan a trip to one of it's moons would be much tougher than Eeloo. Not only would you need to time your launch for a Hohmann transfer, but you would also need to either time your arrival to enter the same orbital plane as the moon, or carry a lot of extra deltaV for the correction. Double this difficulty if you plan on returning. This would also have the ticking clock of RTG's running out of juice or needing even more fuel for fuel cells.

You actually wouldn't need that much dV because the planet would be so far out that the SoI would be relatively very large and high orbits around it would be at tiny velocities, making adjustments trivial. In game currently Eeloo has a larger SoI than Kerbin despite being 5% as massive (at least based on KSP 1 numbers, I don't know if they've slightly changed for 2) and if you're orbiting at the extremes of the SoI you're able to completely reverse your orbit for <50m/s.

The difference between inserting into Eeloo polar versus equatorial is fractions of a single m/s of delta-v and which direction polar doesn't make a difference. It would be harder to have a single craft do both moons or to have craft meet up after doing both moons since you'd have to match inner system velocities, but the simple challenge of going polar isn't anything if you understand what's happening.

Granted if you don't know what's happening or how to do it, the challenge is pretty extreme, but that's not great gameplay design. You'd have a challenge which is a massive step up in difficulty for those who don't truly understand orbital mechanics, to the point that it would likely just be easier to go interstellar in the first place while at the same time being very trivial for those who do understand orbital mechanics and thus offering no real additional push.

The real challenge would be "do you have long term stable electricity generation". I'm assuming more long term RTGs or some other sort of fuel cell will be added for interstellar anyway, so that would be easily solved when new parts are added.

Basically if the choice is "stick Uranus in the Kerbol system" or "have a new system with planets that do cool things" the choice seems trivial to me for the base game.

[Vanamonde]

This suggestion for the game's development has been moved to Suggestions and Development. 

[rjbvre]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Photos from our space telescope:

 Neptune was discovered in 1846, more than a century before first rockets reached Earth orbit. 

I'm not being snarky, I honestly can't tell if you're arguing for or against. Those photos were taken decades after we landed on the moon with a scientific instrument we launched into space. We had no idea what Pluto looked like until 9 years ago even with Hubble.

2 hours ago, hatterson said:

You actually wouldn't need that much dV because the planet would be so far out that the SoI would be relatively very large and high orbits around it would be at tiny velocities, making adjustments trivial. In game currently Eeloo has a larger SoI than Kerbin despite being 5% as massive (at least based on KSP 1 numbers, I don't know if they've slightly changed for 2) and if you're orbiting at the extremes of the SoI you're able to completely reverse your orbit for <50m/s.

The difference between inserting into Eeloo polar versus equatorial is fractions of a single m/s of delta-v and which direction polar doesn't make a difference. It would be harder to have a single craft do both moons or to have craft meet up after doing both moons since you'd have to match inner system velocities, but the simple challenge of going polar isn't anything if you understand what's happening.

You bring up a good point, I didn't think of about the SOIs.  My point stands though. Sure an efficient polar (not technically polar but easier to describe that way) insertion and correction might require similar deltaV to an inefficient equatorial one, but still quite a bit more than an efficient one. We're talking a system with the gravity of an ice giant and multiple moons. It's much easier to use the Oberth effect and gravity assists if you're already in the correct plane. I don't doubt you can use gravity assists to help with the plane change, and that would be another great optional challenge.

3 hours ago, hatterson said:

Granted if you don't know what's happening or how to do it, the challenge is pretty extreme, but that's not great gameplay design. You'd have a challenge which is a massive step up in difficulty for those who don't truly understand orbital mechanics, to the point that it would likely just be easier to go interstellar in the first place while at the same time being very trivial for those who do understand orbital mechanics and thus offering no real additional push.

Huh? It obviously wouldn't be the next goal after your Mun landing. It would probably come after a Laythe landing which itself would come after all sorts of orbital maneuvers. It seems like a natural progression displaying some of the actual things going on in the real world, not some playground of hypothetical planets scientist imagine in their free time. And if getting there is trivial to someone then I imagine the whole game would be trivial to that person anyway.

3 hours ago, hatterson said:

Basically if the choice is "stick Uranus in the Kerbol system" or "have a new system with planets that do cool things" the choice seems trivial to me for the base game.

I agree with this though, but it might be a false dichotomy. Mods might make the most sense for it