A Petition to the Dev Team: The Outer Planets

[hatterson]

29 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

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.

What I meant is that if you don't understand how gravity assists work/struggle to do them well it can be incredibly dV intensive to visit multiple moons in a system and even moreso to switch from a prograde to a retrograde orbit. And if you don't understand those things incredibly well, there's no easy way for the game to teach you nuances like that. The best option is to just do it over and over again until you figure it out. Similarly if you don't understand how to properly align your orbital plane on entering a system it's incredibly dV intensive to figure it all out after insertion.

It's difficult for a mission to teach that stuff because of how late in the progression it would need to happen given the distance from Kerbol and thus you're already at the point where just strapping on more and more delta-v isn't too hard.

29 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

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

Yea that's my primary point. Not "outer planets are bad" because that's the opposite of what I think, but rather "outer planets are best in a mod than the base game as base game development efforts should instead focus on interstellar stuff as the next big challenge"

[rjbvre]

12 minutes ago, hatterson said:

What I meant is that if you don't understand how gravity assists work/struggle to do them well it can be incredibly dV intensive to visit multiple moons in a system and even moreso to switch from a prograde to a retrograde orbit. And if you don't understand those things incredibly well, there's no easy way for the game to teach you nuances like that. The best option is to just do it over and over again until you figure it out. Similarly if you don't understand how to properly align your orbital plane on entering a system it's incredibly dV intensive to figure it all out after insertion.

It's difficult for a mission to teach that stuff because of how late in the progression it would need to happen given the distance from Kerbol and thus you're already at the point where just strapping on more and more delta-v isn't too hard.

That's all fair, and I completely agree about trying to teach mechanics that only become relevant toward the end of a long mission. The same issue applies to trying to design a plane for Laythe, thermal management at Eve or Moho, or even just how much electricity you get from panels at different planets. That's why I suggested an in-game "simulator" to test designs in different locations without being able to get science points. That's really another discussion and off topic though

[Poodmund]

6 hours ago, hatterson said:

... 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.

Probably the best take in this whole thread.

[bigwhitey95]

I agree with the idea of more planets in the Kerbol system to at least add more novelty and interesting places to go before going interstellar, but I would disagree with the idea of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune analogues for reasons that have been already mentioned.

The idea of a Sednoid with an extremely elliptical and somewhat eccentric orbit and an average distance so far out that solar panels would be useless would present challenges with intercepting it and power generation once you are there - I’d like that.

Edited January 8 by bigwhitey95

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, rjbvre said:

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.

I'm saying that we don't need flyby probes to get a look at planets. The very desciptions of multiple bodies in the game have something about observations, that include bodies as tiny as Gilly and Pol.

Also reminder that Kerbals aren't humans and their astronomical discoveries and technology have nothing to do with ours.

[Vl3d]

I would be happy at least with the Rouge Planet.

[rjbvre]

22 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I'm saying that we don't need flyby probes to get a look at planets. The very desciptions of multiple bodies in the game have something about observations, that include bodies as tiny as Gilly and Pol.

Of course we don't need it, its a game. But several of us are saying it would make the game more immersive and enjoyable for us. We're talking about a feature that could probably be turned on and off in settings: you get what you want, we get what we want.

25 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Also reminder that Kerbals aren't humans and their astronomical discoveries and technology have nothing to do with ours.

KSP is overwhelmingly about our technology and space exploration. Almost all the celestial bodies are based on real life ones, most of the parts are functionally and visually clones of real life counterparts, and the progression of technology is basically the same with some differences for gameplay reasons. The fact that it has little green minions and funny names doesn't change that.

[RayneCloud]

41 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

Of course we don't need it, its a game. But several of us are saying it would make the game more immersive and enjoyable for us. We're talking about a feature that could probably be turned on and off in settings: you get what you want, we get what we want.

KSP is overwhelmingly about our technology and space exploration. Almost all the celestial bodies are based on real life ones, most of the parts are functionally and visually clones of real life counterparts, and the progression of technology is basically the same with some differences for gameplay reasons. The fact that it has little green minions and funny names doesn't change that.

People do love using that argument of "they're not humans" (yeah, we know) while forgetting that most all the parts in the game are based off real world versions.

Edited January 8 by RayneCloud

[RayneCloud]

1 hour ago, Poodmund said:

Probably the best take in this whole thread.

So, OPM 2 then?

[GluttonyReaper]

22 hours ago, RayneCloud said:

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

Somewhat tangential to the topic of extra planets (although personally my stance is that I'd rather have outer planets instead of interstellar travel...) but I'd quite like to see the asteroid system expanded to include a lot of these minor bodies, seeing as many of them are usually on the order of only a few kilometres in size. It'd be pretty neat to have to find and track the minor moons in the same way as we do with asteroids in KSP1, and that only leaves a handful of hand-made bodies to make for each planet, which lets you keep them nice and diverse.

Edited January 9 by GluttonyReaper

[Bej Kerman]

23 hours 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?

You're using a more interesting flight plan as a point against  further planets?

[Planterium]

I believe this idea is great to some extent. I would agree simply to just the Gas Planet 2 alongside its proposed moons and Eeloo (idk about Eeloo, it has been the only moon from the gas planet added but seems to be a Pluto analog, probably put it beyond Gas Planet's 2 orbit as the last planet?). Honestly with this new gas giant (It looks more like an ice giant rather than Jovian one in the only screenshot of it which makes it unique), I believe yes could be an interesting place before going interstellar as some probably sort of testing ground (if done right with the moons) before going fully interstellar, also people keep saying that new players dont really want to go beyond Kerbin and the Mun, however the future tech tree will obviously include stuff like an analog to Project Orion, which was already shown in one of those in-game development videos several years ago which will permit the player a much easier way to go beyond Kerbin with those highly advanced technological propulsion. I also would like to see the tutorials expanded to include a more definitive way to build rockets without them refusing to launch because mass is larger than thrust or any other reason and most specifically on orbital mechanics, I believe the tutorial section to get out of the atmosphere isn't well explained and could get better improvements. With this, I believe it would be a good thing to have Gas Planet 2, however coupled with future updates giving out powerful engines or propulsion plus if we got way better tutorial aswell as perhaps better science than rather an automatic button which gives little assessment of what you just did, there could be insensitive for new players and old players to explore Gas Planet 2 and her moons if done properly and beyond Kerbin. Rather than this, I don't really believe anymore planets than Gas Planet 2 should be added since it would just change way too much the iconic Kerbolar system.

Edited January 11 by Planterium
i typed wrong word

[Sammys Stuffs]

honestly I would adore this. I've been playing for years and have always wondered "what if" for the Kerbol system having more planets. Although I disagree with them being analogues. KSP 2 has leaned into giving a lot of it's planets their own unique identities. Dres having a ring now being one of the big ones. I hope they push the envelope just a little bit doing this and make some more interesting concepts. I really took note of that one planet having a 2 atmo atmosphere with mountain ranges extending outside of it and into space. If we get G2 I'd hope we see that moon in particular.

[Bej Kerman]

14 minutes ago, Sammys Stuffs said:

I really took note of that one planet having a 2 atmo atmosphere with mountain ranges extending outside of it and into space

Which one's that?

[Sammys Stuffs]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Which one's that?

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Gas_planet_2 (just posting the reference again for quick access)
under the section of naming it had the names and descriptions of each moon of g2:

Eeloo: Planned to be moved to orbit the new planet. There would be geysers on it that could knock vessels away.

Daphy: A very small asteroid covered in "Fluff" that was collected from GP2's rings. It would be located within the rings themselves.

Potatus: Another small moon. It will have a high inclination relative to GP2. It will rotate extremely fast and be shaped like an oblate spheroid. It would have been white.

Fonso: Will be about 300KM across, and will be the second moon to hold an atmosphere, which will be two atmospheres dense. The extremely mountainous surface will have peaks that stretch into the vacuum.

Fonso is a very cute name and is a very fun concept to me.

[Sammys Stuffs]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:26 AM, GluttonyReaper said:

Somewhat tangential to the topic of extra planets (although personally my stance is that I'd rather have outer planets instead of interstellar travel...) but I'd quite like to see the asteroid system expanded to include a lot of these minor bodies, seeing as many of them are usually on the order of only a few kilometres in size. It'd be pretty neat to have to find and track the minor moons in the same way as we do with asteroids in KSP1, and that only leaves a handful of hand-made bodies to make for each planet, which lets you keep them nice and diverse.

also honestly yeah. I kinda dislike the focus on super super far future (science fiction, let's be honest. Grounded albeit but entirely science fiction) concepts like full interstellar travel instead of focusing more on near future/modern projects. Colonies I don't mind so much because we have things like Artemis going on right now and a Mars base isn't too far off from that conceptually. KSP 1 just felt more grounded I guess? Idk.

[The Aziz]

12 minutes ago, Sammys Stuffs said:

Eeloo: Planned to be moved to orbit the new planet. There would be geysers on it that could knock vessels away.

Merbel

12 minutes ago, Sammys Stuffs said:

Daphy: A very small asteroid covered in "Fluff" that was collected from GP2's rings. It would be located within the rings themselves.

Donk (in a way that it's inside the ring)

14 minutes ago, Sammys Stuffs said:

Fonso: Will be about 300KM across, and will be the second moon to hold an atmosphere, which will be two atmospheres dense. The extremely mountainous surface will have peaks that stretch into the vacuum.

Not sure on the realism of this

12 minutes ago, Sammys Stuffs said:

Potatus: Another small moon. It will have a high inclination relative to GP2. It will rotate extremely fast and be shaped like an oblate spheroid. It would have been white.

Skutt

Most of that is covered in DebDeb system.

[SolarAdmiral]

My personal take is, we probably don't need three more gas giants in the kerbol system.

But, with Jool being at a kerbal sized distance of Jupiter. I'd love to see one more gas giant added, out around the kerbal sized distance of Neptune. It would be an awesome visual. Like, you thought it was a long way to Jool, here's Neptune 6 times further out. It would be great to truly show off the size of our own solar system, and be a bit of a stepping stone to full interstellar travel.

Maybe this neptune stand in could even be tilted on its side with rings like Uranus.

[Planterium]

@The Azizso basically the Gas Planet 2 in KSP1 was repurposed into Glumo for KSP2 lol, yeah I don’t see that much of a problem, infact I would probably most likely support this type of solution.

[The Aziz]

4 hours ago, Planterium said:

@The Azizso basically the Gas Planet 2 in KSP1 was repurposed into Glumo for KSP2 lol, yeah I don’t see that much of a problem, infact I would probably most likely support this type of solution.

Whether that was on purpose or by accident, I'm sure plenty of new bodies fill the niches, and are more interesting because they're out there, in uncharted territories. So you don't know what to expect, all your OPM deltav charts are useless, and who knows, maybe your first steps on an alien system will be on a moon of a very distant planet.

[Dinozone]

From what I surmise, the biggest arguments against stock outer planets are:
1.) most players will never leave the Kerbin system, or will not exhaust the planets already available
2.) Dev resources are better spent on other solar systems,
3.) Exploring the Outer Planets will just be like Jool, not novel enough
4.) Mods serve this purpose fine.

And these are very reasonable points! However, after thinking deeply about the topic for a while, I have to come out in favor of at least one new stock outer planet. Here's why: 

1.) "Most new players will not exhaust the Kerbol system" - I understand this point, but this could be levied against interstellar travel as well. If new players are not going to explore a hypothetical GP2, they certainly aren't exploring systems light years away, needing exotic technology to even reach. KSP2 should be catered to both newbies and KSP1 vets- and one consistent thing that  the KSP1 community has wanted for *years* is GP2. Besides if the new stock outer planet is a Planet 9 analogue, it could be a way to introduce players to interstellar technology- in IRL, Planet 9  "is close to the transition point where chemical propulsion approaches its ... limits, and alternative advanced propulsion systems (e.g., NTP and laser sails) become more attractive." Thus, it can be a useful "tutorial area" to test out exotic interstellar systems, without the decades of travel time and less intense mission planning. 

2.) "Dev resources are better spent on other solar systems"- Other solar systems are indeed exciting, and probably the biggest draw of the game. However,  interstellar travel is potentially *several years* away- not only do potentially dozens of planets need to be developed, but interstellar technology and other systems will have to be overhauled, a stock outer planet is comparatively less resources, and can serve as a stopgap to keep returning players interested during stretches of development. Furthermore, a stock outer planet can serve as a proving ground for systems to be used in other solar systems- ring systems, active geology, etc. 

3. ) "Exploring the Outer Planets will just be like Jool"- I agree having ~4 outer planets might be a bit much- Neptune and Uranus are probably too alike each other to warrant separate KSP2 analogues. However, having more outer planets would open up new mission plans and strategies we do not have with just one. In IRL, Jupiter is the gateway to the outer solar system, rather then it's end. With a few more outer planets/planetoids, Jool takes up this role as well. From Voyager-style grand tour missions, to Jool 5 + GP2, whole new avenues for challenges is opened up.  The moons of a hypothetical GP2 could provide interesting new missions as well.  We don't really have a Triton analogue in game, nor a Io analogue. Landing on a world with an extremely thin atmosphere could provide interesting challenges not found elsewhere in the Kerbol system, and an active volcano world like Io or Enceladus  could provide interesting mission plans (like flying through volcanic/cryovolcanic plumes), and also, as previously stated, can test systems which will be used in the future. 

4.) "Mods serve this purpose fine." Yes, this is true, and probably the reason why we won't get a stock outer planet. Nevertheless, I think locking an outer planet behind a mod is not desirable. I feel like at least one stock outer planet would open up a new avenue for stock mission challenges, a la Jool5, while if it were a mod, would have less impact. Further leaning into the idea that a new outer planet could serve as a stopgap during development, a new planet would provide a flurry of attention which is more tangible then new mechanics or systems, which can only benefit the game in the long-run. And if you don't like the new stock outer planet? Then you could just download a planets mod. 

Not getting a new outer planet is not a dealbreaker for KSP2 for me. Nevertheless, I feel like implementing this long-requested feature is not only a positive for the game as a whole, but a worthwhile endeavor for the dev team. Our solar system doesn't end at Jupiter, and even after a decade of KSP, in my eyes the Kerbol system is still frustratingly incomplete. 

Edited January 14 by Dinozone

[Lowi_Sace]

Outer planets could be a cool gate between the current planets and Interstellar.  Interstellar is very far and this could give players more cool places without leaving the system. They could give some more cool places to explore and different places to build unique colonies. Like most places they are based on real life examples. Places form our solar system that would translate well would be Titan with lakes of rocked feul (Methane), subsurface ocean, Low gravity combined with thick admosphere. Also moons of Uranus and Neptune Could be nice, giving really a feel how dark places that far a way from a star are. Pluto is almost binary with its moons. Since the devs made a special physics for a binary system (Rash and rusk) we could play with that physics without going interstellar.

On 1/8/2024 at 4:16 PM, 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.

This is what excites me about the interstellar update. Starting from scratch with very limited recources in a whole new system to explore. 

 

On 1/8/2024 at 6:05 PM, The Aziz said:

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

But they needed Voyager to discover more of its moons and map some of the moons surfaces in more detail. That could be great for a future feature. more detailed information about planets/moons by orbiters and probes. Would add more then just go there and do some science

[DoomsdayDuck555]

I don't see any reason not besides the use of dev time.

I think that they would be good ways to teach long term use of nuclear generators,  jool gravity assists, and testing out new engines. Also, assuming they would be far enough away, manned missions may require orbital assembly outside of kerbins orbit.

[Hum_bug]

I would have loved to have seen outer planets as part of KSP 2 initial release but since they aren't there now maybe it is better to let devs focus on Interstellar for now. 

An alternative idea is that a future star system to visit is actually the solar system but perhaps at a different point in time to now. Either in distant past - perhaps Kerbals cause a moon of Saturn to explode and make the rings, knock an Asteroid towards the 3rd planet or take a bath on the 4th planet; or in the distant future and they find the remains of an ancient civilization... 

[Bej Kerman]

20 minutes ago, Hum_bug said:

An alternative idea is that a future star system to visit is actually the solar system but perhaps at a different point in time to now

Why the solar system, besides fan service?