How to got more than one Star System to work....

[chaos_forge]

Here's an idea. Instead of having in huge gap between Kerbol and the next star, what if suddenly Kerbol was part of a binary star system, and the companion star had its own planetary system. It could be very far away, perhaps 5-10 times the distance of Eeloo's orbit. That gives you another star to play around with and you wouldn't need lightspeed stuff.

I agree. I suggested this exact same thing, but my post got completely ignored.

The problem that gets glossed over repeatedly in this discussion is what happens on Kerbin for the intervening time? I mean it's one thing to launch a mission and then go back to building on Kerbin, but if you launch the mission and time warp until it arrives you're looking at decades, possibly centuries, going by at home with nothing happening. That breaks the "program" part in the title, in my opinion.

With multi-star systems (and orion drives or the like), the travel time between two stars would be reasonable enough (say two or three years) for the realism to not be broken so much. Also, once we have some kind of alarm clock functionality, we can keep on launching missions on Kerbin while the interstellar probe drifts.

But stars are very huge and don't exactly orbit around each other in a binary system but (kinda) orbit around their combined center of mass. Does KSP support this? How about 2 stars light source effect on rendering? Or just make them separate SOI for now, for simplicity

KSP does not support this, but we had a very long discussion on how to make barycenters work, and we figured out that it wouldn't be too difficult to implement.

I think the best way to implement multiple stars would be to have kerbol be in a quadruple star system that looks something like this. Another benefit to this would be that it follows KSP's method of incrementing difficulty: getting to Kerbol's binary companion would be significantly easier than getting to the other binary system.

Edited August 6, 2013 by chaos_forge

[Alex_Leonardo]

I know this is thinking REALLY big, way beyond any foreseeable future update, but I'd love to know what the KSP community thinks would be the best way to make more than one star system a possibility. Obviously there's the fact that these systems are light-years away irl that we'd have to get around in some way, and that the systems would have to far away enough that there would be no major gravitational interaction between systems (although that WOULD give interesting results), and still keep them close enough that a player could feasably reach them in less than say, half an hour of in game warped time.

I personally would love it if you could have a "Warp Speed" time acceleration mode only available if you are in an escape trajectory from a system, so you could warp to your destination at a much, much quicker speed.

Edit: Sorry for the typo in the title, it's 4:45 AM here, and all out of Alcohol and Energy drinks

This isn't really over any foreseeable update. I'm pretty sure this thread could have been reposted hundreds of times since the start of suggestions.

Anyways, if we did have separate solar systems, we should have some type of freeze-hibernation mode, which it is put into a super warp mode, that automatically stops when you get to the different system.

Even if you were to not implement super-warp, there should be at-least some sights to see, or some lost moons, asteroids, or planets.

[Alex_Leonardo]

@MRab2

I was thinking about that too. They could have a dry food source. Also, kerbals could just get a mini car engine, and stick the muffler in their mouths. (They're plants right?)

Just kidding. Cryogenic states induce the fact that you don't need as much food or water, and you don't need as much oxygen because your heart slows down, and you aren't as using much energy to heat or cool your body.

And if you had a Alcubierre drive, it would take even less resources. Because if you were traveling TSOL (The. SPeed of light) every 8 years is 2 years for you.

[Beeburgers]

@MRab2

Just kidding. Cryogenic states induce the fact that you don't need as much food or water, and you don't need as much oxygen because your heart slows down, and you aren't as using much energy to heat or cool your body.

And if you had a Alcubierre drive, it would take even less resources. Because if you were traveling TSOL (The. SPeed of light) every 8 years is 2 years for you.

I don't know, cryogenics is currently more science fiction than anti-matter IMO. The current process involves replacing all the fluid in the body with some kind of gel or another, and then getting turned into an ice cube. Currently, we have no way of reanimating a person who's been frozen. As far as I know, there's also no way of making a person hibernate, or go into some kind of cold sleep to slow their metabolism.

While I like the idea of having a multi-star system... uh system... I don't think traveling between stars should be like traveling between planets, only further away. If you think about it, each step in KSP means you have to change everything about your spacecraft. Getting a satellite into orbit compared to going to the Mun, and then going to Jool, and then Duna. All of these are massively different missions that require insanely different builds and strategies to get there.

And with hibernation there's still the issue of game time to get there. Even with shrinkage, you're looking at a single straight shot taking a year or more in game time at the speed of light. And you run into a lot of issues when going the speed of light. (all that non-convergence, time dilation and the universe imploding when you turn on a flashlight.... (well maybe not that last one...)) So one trip out there, with a probe to see what's there: One year, also a year for the signal to return to Kerbin. (Have fun with that Remote Tech!) You launch a manned mission, and it's a year to get there, and another year for them to send the message that the space toilet broke, then another year before a new one can be sent. That's five years for two manned trips to the nearest star at four times shrinkage, and that's all with an engine that works by bending the fabric of space/time, requires absurd amounts of energy and negative matter.... (unless Wikipedia is lying to me again) And all that would result in zero pay off (Other than some sciency stuff after the toilet request was sent) and your Kerbals stranded in another star system until they can build another interstellar ship and wait another year for their relief to arrive.

Personally, I think Scott Manly's idea of finding Monoliths and learning how to build space gates is more feasible, and would make the whole thing more fun to actually play. I'm thinking that you'd have to build several gates that have to line up on some kind of escape trajectory and then something to "catch" the ship on the other side. You would still need to send them there with conventional rockets or nuclear (maybe anti-matter or some kind of fusion) and have them build the gates on their side before you could start bussing Kerbals, and supplies to and from.

[Scoundrel]

So, a little spoiler alert (as the spoiler tags don't work I'm whiting out the spoiler part) I'm guessing a lot of people haven't gone to the north pole of Kerbin, which would help shed some light about Squad's vision of the game that have been posed in this thread. It does, of course, answer the Kerbal Origin Question, but I think it also would help direct the speculation on what kind of technologies could pop up late in the game.

Side note: I really like the hibernation unlocking a maximum time warp idea. The hibernation method has always been my hard SF interplanetary travel method of choice in novels and movies. Squad, however, are likely simply looking for a cutscene/loading scene method of travel by saying "100 days later" or something like that. In any event, it's too early to tell what they're thinking considering they haven't even got resources sorted out nor finished making the basic stock parts.

[MRab2]

They could just hibernate. That would be better than magic warp drives (I think hibernation is less unrealistic than "warp drive").

You planning on hibernating your entire space program? By the time you launch your intersteller ship you're likely going to have dozens, it not hundreds of Kerbals in space. Various bases, mining outposts etc etc. You planning on putting all that interesting stuff on hold for several decades of game time to watch one ship fly through empty space?

What's actually the fun of interstellar journey if it's done in one click?

Who said it'd be done with one click? Oh, you.

Time warp at least simulates time pass and we still see increasing date.

So what?

It would be nice if we'll have bigger time warp and realistic engine (huge nuclear one, bigger ion engine, electric sail or Alcubierre drive).

An Alcubierre drive is an FTL system.

The issue with a long speeding up could be fixed with making hybrid warp after apoapsis of the last celestial body in planetary system possible. By hybrid warp I mean warp which could be huge (for example 10 000) but during which engines could work (altough the thrust level, roll and direction are fixed and physics disabled). There could also be a restriction that it couldn't be turned on if the ship hasn't last at least 2 minutes of speeding up at desired thrust level without structural linkage failure or changing the direction more than 5 degrees.

But what do you do about the other 99% of your space program? Are you seriously telling me an FTL system is more unrealistic than putting an entire space program on hold for several decades?

[Morty_jhones]

what i would do is make 'transition gates' around the system is a ship hits them within say 15 degrees of the alinement then it is saved and deleted. a calculation is performed on its acceleration and mass as to how long it will take it to get to the destination system. anything that don't match the alinement is treated as an orbital even if it has system escape velocity. resin being that it would get so far off coarse that it would never be able to correct to reach its target. then when the player's game hits the right time mark. a new button appears in the radar room - system telemetry - which then lets you save the game and switch to the system you have arrived at and take command there. once you finished mucking about there. then you save and reload the main system again.

[Fifi]

You planning on hibernating your entire space program? By the time you launch your intersteller ship you're likely going to have dozens, it not hundreds of Kerbals in space. Various bases, mining outposts etc etc. You planning on putting all that interesting stuff on hold for several decades of game time to watch one ship fly through empty space?

I don't say it will be a long journey. The typical journey to a nearby star would take about 10 years if travelling at 70% speed of light. I got space program which has over 40 years while other stars aren't in game yet, so I think it would be kinda ok.

Who said it'd be done with one click? Oh, you.

Well, it depends if Devs meant "warp" as a FTL drive or as a teleportation ("warping").

So what?

It looks more realistic compared to "click, I'm here".

An Alcubierre drive is an FTL system.

Yes, but explainable in the matter of science.

But what do you do about the other 99% of your space program? Are you seriously telling me an FTL system is more unrealistic than putting an entire space program on hold for several decades?

Well, Kerbals already look to have endless life (my kerbals haven't changed in 42 years ;> ), so I don't think it's a problem. Of course it's not realistic, but relativity is a basic law of physics while the biology couldn't say for sure that there couldn't be autoregenerating life.

what i would do is make 'transition gates' around the system is a ship hits them within say 15 degrees of the alinement then it is saved and deleted. a calculation is performed on its acceleration and mass as to how long it will take it to get to the destination system. anything that don't match the alinement is treated as an orbital even if it has system escape velocity. resin being that it would get so far off coarse that it would never be able to correct to reach its target. then when the player's game hits the right time mark. a new button appears in the radar room - system telemetry - which then lets you save the game and switch to the system you have arrived at and take command there. once you finished mucking about there. then you save and reload the main system again.

It would be realistic, but why then don't put crew stranded in space?

One of the most fascinating part of KSP is that you actually watch ship running on orbit (or on straight line, if we are talking about interstellar travel without a galaxy) and slowly arriving the maneuver node or encounter. Of course it can - and should - be speeded up by the time warp, but this way it still got the feel of a real space program which doesn't jump the ship to the right place but slowly move a long time with just a little corrections.

I thought that Devs were saying about engine which teleports from one star system to another. If it's just an engine like all the others (despite the fact it's a FTL drive, explained by Alcubierre maths) and the ship will still move in map view over a course line - it's completely ok for me and I just misunderstood it (then sorry for the mess D: ).

Edited August 6, 2013 by Fifi

[MRab2]

I don't say it will be a long journey. The typical journey to a nearby star would take about 10 years if travelling at 70% speed of light. I got space program which has over 40 years while other stars aren't in game yet, so I think it would be kinda ok.

If you're running mission at a time I'm not surprised you're up to 40 years. When I was running my *campaign* I had a fairly well developed infrastructure that stretched from Duna to Jool completed in less than 5 years of game time, but I had numerous missions running simultaneously, and of course, there was no economy to worry about.

I'm telling you right now, putting everything on hold for 10 years is COMPLETELY unreasonable and far more stupid as a game mechanic than any *magic* propulsion system.

Well, it depends if Devs meant "warp" as a FTL drive or as a teleportation ("warping").

Well personally I've never assumed they meant some kind of instantaneous propulsion system as that wouldn't make any kind of sense and really wouldn't fit with the game.

Well, Kerbals already look to have endless life (my kerbals haven't changed in 42 years ;> ), so I don't think it's a problem. Of course it's not realistic, but relativity is a basic law of physics while the biology couldn't say for sure that there couldn't be autoregenerating life.

NOW the Kerbals live forever, but you're assuming there's not going to be any life support mechanic in the future, which would be more unrealistic than any *magic* click you're there drive. Expect to be making supply runs, need hydroponics and Kerbals dying if you run out of something important, whilst you're sitting waiting for 10 years to pass in high warp.

[MRab2]

I thought that Devs were saying about engine which teleports from one star system to another. If it's just an engine like all the others (despite the fact it's a FTL drive, explained by Alcubierre maths) and the ship will still move in map view over a course line - it's completely ok for me and I just misunderstood it (then sorry for the mess D: ).

We appear to have arrived on the same page

[chaos_forge]

While I like the idea of having a multi-star system... uh system... I don't think traveling between stars should be like traveling between planets, only further away. If you think about it, each step in KSP means you have to change everything about your spacecraft. Getting a satellite into orbit compared to going to the Mun, and then going to Jool, and then Duna. All of these are massively different missions that require insanely different builds and strategies to get there.

Not sure what your point is here . . .Traveling to other planets is pretty easy. All I have to do is replace the upper stage of my Mun probe with an LVN, and boom, it can get to Duna. All the planets follow Newton's orbital mechanics, the only difference between them is distance. And anyways, traveling between stars would be fundamentally different because it would require you to transition from Kerbol's SOI to the "interstellar" SOI (be it a barycenter or something else) to the other star's SOI. You don't have to do that to get to another planet.

[Fifi]

We appear to have arrived on the same page

Yup, i just understand it improperly.

Thread off, sorry for taking your time guys.

[Fett2oo5]

I like the idea of FTL drives/engine very much. Yes a stretch into the Sci-Fi realm, but it follows along in the game mechanics of developing more advanced rocketry/crafts.

Couple this with ever increasingly difficult maneuvers you would have to perform and you'd have a winner in my book.

It could even require prerequisites such as

Establishing a space station in orbit around the star.

Mining specific materials from each planet (and/or moons) - could also be required to create parts from said materials. (of course you would have to survey the surface to find pockets of these materials - you think you get them for free? hahaha, not so fast my friend.)

Then delivering these materials and parts to the space station.

Combine all of these into the "trans-system ship" including the FTL drive.

Do construction at the space station. (Do I also have to build a Space Ship Yard? Yes, yes you do.)

Require a complex maneuver to put you in position for the system you wish to visit.

Then fire up the FTL.

[Beeburgers]

Not sure what your point is here . . .Traveling to other planets is pretty easy. All I have to do is replace the upper stage of my Mun probe with an LVN, and boom, it can get to Duna. All the planets follow Newton's orbital mechanics, the only difference between them is distance. And anyways, traveling between stars would be fundamentally different because it would require you to transition from Kerbol's SOI to the "interstellar" SOI (be it a barycenter or something else) to the other star's SOI. You don't have to do that to get to another planet.

Erm... My interplanetary missions tend to involve a bit more than just slapping an LVN onto the upper stage. Usually I have to put a habitation module into space and then add an interplanetary transfer module to it. On top of that you are transferring between Kerbin's orbit and to the SOI of a planet. With the Mun you are changing from level Kerbin's orbit to a higher point in the same orbit. On top of that, if you're going to a satellite in orbit around another planet you have to get to that planet's SOI, then into the same plane as the satellite, and then make the switch.

I'm not arguing that going from one star to another that is near wouldn't be difficult and challenging, but it seems like it's the same thing as going to different planets... only now its a star. There just isn't the same escalation in challenge. We already know how to transfer from one orbit to another. I would like to escape an orbit entirely and have to be recaptured by another. But, that's just me.

Are we both talking about two or three stars that share a close orbit with one another? Not stars that are separated by light years and do not share a SOI with anything else?

[chaos_forge]

I'm not arguing that going from one star to another that is near wouldn't be difficult and challenging, but it seems like it's the same thing as going to different planets... only now its a star. There just isn't the same escalation in challenge. We already know how to transfer from one orbit to another. I would like to escape an orbit entirely and have to be recaptured by another. But, that's just me.

Are we both talking about two or three stars that share a close orbit with one another? Not stars that are separated by light years and do not share a SOI with anything else?

Yes, and with a multi-star system, that's exactly what you'd do. It wouldn't be transferring from one orbit to another because each star has its own SOI. You'd have to escape from Kerbol, sail through the interstellar space, and then be captured by the other star. The difference is the same as the difference between moons and planets. It's another level in the hierarchy. The maneuver would be more or less like transferring from Laythe to a moon in orbit of another gas giant around Kerbol, in the same sense that a transfer from Mun to Minmus is like a planetary transfer.

[loknar]

Yes, and with a multi-star system, that's exactly what you'd do. It wouldn't be transferring from one orbit to another because each star has its own SOI. You'd have to escape from Kerbol, sail through the interstellar space, and then be captured by the other star. The difference is the same as the difference between moons and planets. It's another level in the hierarchy. The maneuver would be more or less like transferring from Laythe to a moon in orbit of another gas giant around Kerbol, in the same sense that a transfer from Mun to Minmus is like a planetary transfer.

+1 guys. I don't think the devs will go full-scifi with FTL drives. They have to cater to many different gamers and there are so many ways to gradually increase content without massive changes to the game logic - comets, asteroids, local star cluster.

[carazvan]

I think rather than going and trying to figure out how to add a new engine type or new gameplay mechanic we should first and foremost look at what a new star system could bring to gameplay and why we'd want it.

The main one I'd see is having new and interesting planets and configurations ... but therein comes a problem again ... creating new planets and moons isn't easy if we want them to be high quality. The suggestion I'd make is that instead of trying to figure out new star systems and wormhole drives or FTL drives with ridiculous deltaV we could have an option to start in the 'default' Kerbol system or start in a pseudo-random system

By pseudo-random I mean a system where we have all the planets we know with slight variations in their characteristics (Imagine a Duna with 0.5x gravity) and then also vary what orbits around what body. Namely maybe start with Kerbin orbiting a Gas giant (Have more than one Jool type planet), have crazy orbit 'captured' planets. All these orbits could be saved directly in the persistence file (wouldn't take much just normal orbit data + SOI Range) and be generatable with a seed that can be shared if weird/fun systems are found.

[NERVAfan]

I'd much rather have Kerbol become part of a multi-star system, with reasonable-without-FTL distances between the parts.

If more gas giants are to be added... say the outermost is 20 times Kerbin's distance from Kerbol* ... maybe make the nearest companion star 100 or 150 times Kerbin's distance. There would be a Kerbol SOI and a companion star SOI, and outside those either a "galaxy" SOI, or the SOI of a black hole, massive neutron star, supergiant, or something else cool that the Kerbol + companion system is orbiting... it would be much farther away, but still not light year distances, maybe 1000-2000x Kerbin's distance.

*yeah, Neptune is farther, but IMO Uranus and Neptune are similar enough that there could be just one KSP analog for both... all we really need is one gas giant with major rings (Saturn analog) and one "small" gas/ice giant.

[Skorpion]

I don't know, cryogenics is currently more science fiction than anti-matter IMO.

This. A team at CERN is currently able to produce and store antimatter for 17 minutes. Scaling up is going to prove difficult, but at least we're doing real hands-on science with the stuff. Antimatter is miles ahead of cryogenics.

Personally, I think building an Alcubierre drive is a great end-game goal. Even in sandbox mode, it would require you to build ships in orbit and scoop antimatter from Jool's magnetosphere, and you would still need conventional drives in order to change course, so it's no "click to teleport" solution.

Although, personally, I would also love the ability to arbitrarily jump ahead to a certain point in time -- or a certain point on my trajectory -- rather than fussing with time acceleration. I don't think my gameplay experience is heightened by leaving my computer in time-acceleration mode for ages in order to reach Eeloo.

[Rockhem]

I will quit KSP if a fake sci - fi FTL drive is made and warn everybody to stay away. I don 't want to have to mine unobtanium from the surface of jool and extract part of kerbol's core to get a cheat wherever I want drive.

Simple answer, some star clusters have stars 0.1 light years so do that 10 x smaller and you get 0.01 lightyears. Boom you only need to travel at a mere 60 km/s to get there in 5 years or 30 in 10.

Problem solved. No FTL needed (a sublight speed antimatter drive would be great for this) Antimatter has been made and container so a small antimatter drive would get us to 1% the speed of light.

I imagine in career mode you would get your own LHC and upgrading it would make it produce more and faster. (Doesn't go faster in timewarp to stop that obvious problem.)

[allmappedout]

I will quit KSP if a fake sci - fi FTL drive is made and warn everybody to stay away. I don 't want to have to mine unobtanium from the surface of jool and extract part of kerbol's core to get a cheat wherever I want drive.

Simple answer, some star clusters have stars 0.1 light years so do that 10 x smaller and you get 0.01 lightyears. Boom you only need to travel at a mere 60 km/s to get there in 5 years or 30 in 10.

Problem solved. No FTL needed (a sublight speed antimatter drive would be great for this) Antimatter has been made and container so a small antimatter drive would get us to 1% the speed of light.

I imagine in career mode you would get your own LHC and upgrading it would make it produce more and faster. (Doesn't go faster in timewarp to stop that obvious problem.)

I love how you say that you don't want Sci-Fi, but you suggest an anti-matter drive?

Whilst anti-matter has and can be created, it is currently unable to be stored, particularly for long periods, and much more specifically, for net energy gain - currently creating anti-matter involves converting energy to mass, so there is no point in creating it.

The only even remotely feasible solution, is an orion drive, which will get you there in a reasonable timeframe without all life on Kerbin dying from boredom. Solar sails, ion engines, etc all rely on long time frames, and require active control for the deceleration burn as well as the acceleration period.

It needs some science gizmo, unfortunately, to work and keep the game fun.

[Anton P. Nym]

I love how you say that you don't want Sci-Fi, but you suggest an anti-matter drive?

Whilst anti-matter has and can be created, it is currently unable to be stored, particularly for long periods, and much more specifically, for net energy gain - currently creating anti-matter involves converting energy to mass, so there is no point in creating it.

Sure there's a point, just like there's a point in using energy to extract hydrogen; it's a portable storage system for energy that's lighter than the machinery used to generate that energy. The problem right now is that antimatter storage is only short-term at the moment, though we've made huge progress on that in my lifetime. (From miliseconds to a quarter-hour is huge progress. It's just not huge enough yet.)

-- Steve

[Rockhem]

Sure there's a point, just like there's a point in using energy to extract hydrogen; it's a portable storage system for energy that's lighter than the machinery used to generate that energy. The problem right now is that antimatter storage is only short-term at the moment, though we've made huge progress on that in my lifetime. (From miliseconds to a quarter-hour is huge progress. It's just not huge enough yet.)

-- Steve

Im talking about technology that is feasible within about 50-75 years, the antimatter drive has a leg up on all those others because it actually exists and is scientifically possible under our laws of physics and it can be stored (albeit shortly but this is improving.)

[chaos_forge]

Im talking about technology that is feasible within about 50-75 years, the antimatter drive has a leg up on all those others because it actually exists and is scientifically possible under our laws of physics and it can be stored (albeit shortly but this is improving.)

The Orion drive has been feasible since the 1960's. And as we all know, kerbals aren't as scared of nuclear technology as we are. Why use something else when you can use the most kerbal of all engines?

IMHO, a multi-star system is the best way to appease both the realism crowd and the "I want to get there in <50 years" crowd.

[Sun]

Steps to solving this problem:

7. Take the VAB keys from Jeb

LOL That's hilarious