Will we get to other stars?

[lyndonguitar]

I was reading around in the forums and many are mentioning that they will implement interstellar travel in the future, but I looked at the wiki and the site and they don't mention this.

So my question is will we ever get to other stars or we will just get stuck on Kerbol? Is this an actual feature really planned by the devs or just a community request/wish?

[Vanamonde]

That is so far down the road that I don't think they've done anything more than spitball ideas, though there was some talk of making this solar system a binary or trinary with planets around each.

[Temstar]

I kind of doubt we will ever see interstellar travel and I have no issue with that. How exactly are you going to module other star systems in KSP? You can't exactly have three stars orbiting a super massive black hole and call that a galaxy. So if it's not a galactic black hole what SOI will you switch to once you're going far away from Kerbol?

I also don't like the idea of warp drive or anti matter rockets. Having such fantastical technology will invalidate all existing engines and parts in KSP. A civilisation capable of building anti-matter rockets and interstellar ships will also be using advanced technology to move around with in their own system. To such an advanced civilisation using chemical rockets to move around will make as much sense as one of us hoping on a horse to go down to the local store to pick up a bottle of milk, even though horses are as valid form of transportation today as they were back when a hunter gatherer first jumped onto one.

[Tw1]

There was a heap of discussion about this on the form a while ago. The interstellar motor they will implement will be hard to use, and not work very well for less than interstellar distances.

But I agree with the guy above me, there are so many technologies that would need to arrive first, like gravity manipulation, which logically would change the way the game works.

But maybe the Kerbals won't invent it. They'll just find it on the side of the road...

Also, if we're far enough from the galactic core, maybe they don't need to have an SOI for the supermassive black hole. Just one for each star.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Tw1

[Canopus]

I don't need another Star system. They are going to make the Kerbol System bigger and there will be enough to do.

[Tw1]

I don't need another Star system. They are going to make the Kerbol System bigger and there will be enough to do.

I agree. If you look on the NASA's eyes website, and see how much stuff there is in our solar system alone, another solar system seems excessive.

[Akalaël]

I would really like an other solar system.

The idea of a binary system is attractive, but as the Kerbal system is the copy of ours, it seems inadequate.

You want a interstellar engine that does not overkill the chemical ones ? There you are : the Busard engine !

It works exactly the same way as the jets engines, but while using "AirIntake" it uses "InterstellarHydrogenIntake". Basically, it's a scoop made of magnetic fields gathering the hydrogen, compressing and ingnite it. And the only way to use it it to have enough speed to initiate the process.

More infos here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

So you have this engine, and to make it inefficient in the Kerbal system, let's just say that the interstellar hydrogen is located... well, out of the system. As the atmosphere of Kerbin contains air, and you can't find any after 70 km, the interstellar hydrogen will be found after the last planet of the system...

[_Aramchek_]

I really find it hard to beleive people dislike the idea of traveling to other solar systems. Seriously, wtf?

[Canopus]

i think traveling to other Star systems is out of the scope of the game. especially if its done with some fantasy warp drives.

[Akalaël]

Hey !!!! The Busard ramjet is NOT a fantasy warp drive !

At last, I dont think so

[Canopus]

No i'm thinking about the FTL engine everyone is talking about.

[Temstar]

I really find it hard to beleive people dislike the idea of traveling to other solar systems. Seriously, wtf?

The reason I'm against it is because there is no good implementation to having multiple star systems. Basically you have two choices:

1. Having multiple stars revolving around a common mass, usually a super massive black hole. Now you can't really have billions of stars in KSP for a proper galaxy so you're going to get some bizarre looking half-assed galaxy with like 5 stars orbiting the black hole which would make no sense

or

2. Have stars in binary/multiple systems orbiting a common barycenter. Since it looks like KSP doesn't support barycenters that's out of the question too.

[Akalaël]

I agree with you : KSP is a semi-realistic game, based on physic (most of the time !).

That's why I'm proposing the Busard ramjet. It's not magic, it makes physical sens, and you can't use it in the Kerbal system...

But I think I'm dreaming, there is so mutch job to do for SQUAD rigth now in the Kerbal's system that we will probably not see interstellar travel for a looooong time (if ever it comes one day).

[tofuturkey]

Einstein has been proven wrong about FTL, because there are sub-atomic particles capable of traveling faster than the speed of light. Besides, who are we to say the Laws of Physics have been discovered, and Science will never find new "facts"? Just because we can't travel faster than light now doesn't mean it is impossible. Every time I hear someone quote Einstein I get mad...

Back in the Medieval Ages, there were many scientific phenomena that were "unexplainable" and were treated as mystical and/or witchcraft. That didn't make it any more fake or "fantastical", did it? Now we know the scientific truth to a great many of these so-called magical occurrences. Who knows, 100 years from now we could have civilization on Mars, something that many people would swear to you was impossible only 100 years past.

BTW, even though this GAME has many realistic features, it is still a GAME and there are plenty of un-realistic things about it, such as Kerbals, the coloring of the planets, etc. So, it is perfectly reasonable to find FTL drives in this GAME. It isn't a simulator, after all...

Maybe a suggestion to a mod to close this thread? After typing this response, I realized that there are many threads regarding this subject already on the forums. No need to keep beating a dead horse. The horse has been beat; lets just wait until KSP has been around a while longer and see what the future has in store.

[Nimaci]

I'm totally ok with having multiple stars orbiting a small black hole, mainly because I can't think of a better option.

Interstellar transfer orbits would be very interesting...

[Frankiebolo]

Einstein has been proven wrong about FTL, because there are sub-atomic particles capable of traveling faster than the speed of light. Besides, who are we to say the Laws of Physics have been discovered, and Science will never find new "facts"? Just because we can't travel faster than light now doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'd like to hear wich are the Faster-than-Light sub-atomic particles that you are talking about...Are you referring to the neutrino italian experiment in Gran Sasso laboratories like one year ago? Well, since I'm Italian I don't like to make ourselves laughed at, but that experimental result has been a COMPLETE MISTAKE. The difference between the teoretical position of the neutrinos and the real one was a result of non considering the little(but yet decisive) fallacies of the GPS system. They tought that the neutrino had passed the detector a little early, but that was the result of the uncertainty of the detector's position.

Surely you are right telling that science can discover FTL travels, but as far as we know it all experimental data tells us that speed of light is actually the "speed limit" of the universe. There's had been suggestion of possible alternative sub atomical particles that could actually break that barrier, but at this moment they are really far away from being detected and their existence is only SPECULATIVE.

Einstein has been wrong in many things, but relativity is weel far from being discredited. It has been demostrated in such multiple ways, it's used in our everyday life (GPS couldn't work of we didn't knew the relativistic effects of orbital trajectories) and keeps on being confirmed everyday by thousands of scientist all over the world.

[Brotoro]

I'd like to hear wich are the Faster-than-Light sub-atomic particles that you are talking about...Are you referring to the neutrino italian experiment in Gran Sasso laboratories like one year ago? Well, since I'm Italian I don't like to make ourselves laughed at, but that experimental result has been a COMPLETE MISTAKE. The difference between the teoretical position of the neutrinos and the real one was a result of non considering the little(but yet decisive) fallacies of the GPS system. They tought that the neutrino had passed the detector a little early, but that was the result of the uncertainty of the detector's position.

Surely you are right telling that science can discover FTL travels, but as far as we know it all experimental data tells us that speed of light is actually the "speed limit" of the universe. There's had been suggestion of possible alternative sub atomical particles that could actually break that barrier, but at this moment they are really far away from being detected and their existence is only SPECULATIVE.

Einstein has been wrong in many things, but relativity is weel far from being discredited. It has been demostrated in such multiple ways, it's used in our everyday life (GPS couldn't work of we didn't knew the relativistic effects of orbital trajectories) and keeps on being confirmed everyday by thousands of scientist all over the world.

No reason to think the Italians are being laughed at. They had unexpected results...they told people... everybody and his brother tried to figure out how this could be... somebody eventually found the error. This is how Science works.

[1of6Billion]

You don't need an FTL-drive to get to another star system, only enough patience.

* Launch mission

* Exit Kerbol system

* Switch back to KSC

* Launch a few other missions, or play around, whatever.

* After a few hours of gameplay and years of mission time, you enter your starsystem of choice.

* Profit

[Splode]

I'd like to hear wich are the Faster-than-Light sub-atomic particles that you are talking about

I imagine he is talking about these little guys

That said, they haven't been proven to exist yet: Einstein hasn't been proven wrong about the speed of light just yet.

[Tw1]

Bustard ramjets are pretty realistic, but it would be very slow for those of us who like managing multiple trips at once. It would take decades to get anywhere, and in that time you could've done many things in your own system.

Also, the Milky Way galaxy is something like 120,000 light years across. Our sun's orbit has a period of 200 million years. We're not moving away from the other stars around us any time soon.

We could have a few stars in stationary positions relative to each other. Each would have its own SOI. We would not need a barycenter or black hole in order to have a few solar systems.

[Awaras]

The reason I'm against it is because there is no good implementation to having multiple star systems. Basically you have two choices:

1. Having multiple stars revolving around a common mass, usually a super massive black hole. Now you can't really have billions of stars in KSP for a proper galaxy so you're going to get some bizarre looking half-assed galaxy with like 5 stars orbiting the black hole which would make no sense

or

2. Have stars in binary/multiple systems orbiting a common barycenter. Since it looks like KSP doesn't support barycenters that's out of the question too.

Or 3. Have stars move in nearly straight lines and more-less random directions relative to Kerbol as the stars near our Sun seem to be moving...

[Splode]

I like the idea of leaving our solar system, but it's not really worth the trouble for the devs, and it'd only really make sense for long range probes (ie voyager type things). Manned interstellar missions are just a bit silly.

I'd prefer the devs to focus on this solar system. Asteroids, comets, that Kuiper belt thingy, maybe even dwarf planets that don't show up on the global map until you get out that far.

That'd be cool.

[Conte_Vincero]

My twopenneth:

The people who say that the hyperdrives used for moving between star systems will render any other form of inter system travel obsolete seem to be assuming that the engine will be simple to use (i.e. a more powerful mainsail). What if the engines are so large that they require the parts to be assembled in orbit. The required engines, fuel/collectors, and guidance systems may require a ship larger than most current space stations. Add to that the fact that short hops are really inefficient, and unless you want to have massive refueling depots around the place, using the engines for small hops becomes undesireible. Also I suggested a while back that alternate stars may bring space telescopes into play. For example, you have picked out a star and want to travel to it. You will need to set up several (at least 3) telescopes, as far apart from eachother as possible, and use them to calculate that star's position and velocity. This way interstellar travel requires a lot of preparation, and won't be as simple as people claim.

[Kerbface]

I don't think this should be in until it's a conceivable option in our near future (next 30-40 years). Kerbal Space Program is not about far off theoretical tech, it's about building a practical space program based off real tech and physics.

Plus, there's a million other things that need to be done before the devs even give interstellar travel a serious thought.

[MRab2]

Just an fyi. NASA is funding an ftl propulsion experiment right now. The warp drive may be here sooner than we expected.