extend the atmosphere + idea for upper atmospheric orbits

[thereaverofdarkness]

Many of you probably know this already, but an orbit in Kerbin's upper atmosphere won't last very long. You can go around once at most without orbital corrections. It's fine for brief maneuvers, but you don't want to stay there more than an hour maybe unless you switch to another ship (which it won't let you do). So here's my idea for increasing the realism of KSP in a way that would not clash with current game mechanics, and would add another level of depth to gameplay:

(I use USA commas and decimal points)

Step 1.) Basically, just increase the cutoff height of Kerbin's atmosphere from ~70km to ~120km. Based on the scale height of 5000m (from KSP wiki), this means the cutoff air pressure would be reduced from ~84 millipascals to ~0.0038 millipascals, or divided by 22,105.

Step 2.) Incorporate a special physics warp that checks only the mass and overall drag of a ship, treating it as a single solid object, and make all ships within current sphere of influence that are in atmosphere use this physics warp at low warp settings - perhaps something that can be toggled in the menu. I don't think this will blow up computers but I can't say I know for sure. This physics warp would take over the normal time warp options where applicable, and would only apply to bodies in atmosphere, the rest would stay on rails.

Step 3.) Allow 5x and 10x partial physics warp at 50km, and 50x at 70km. Also allow saving and ship-swapping in 70-120km atmosphere. (different values would apply to different worlds based on atmosphere thicknesses) Also the space music should still play at 70km like before. When outside the atmosphere, your ship would go on rails for time warp but the other ships still in atmosphere would stay on the partial physics warp up to, say 1000x or 10,000x warp. It would be even easier to do this time warp if the physics engine would do fewer drag recalculations for ships in higher atmosphere, say, 1 check per game hour for ships at 70-80km, 1 check per 3 hours for ships at 80-90km, as long as they are still in that altitude range. Ships orbiting that high really won't experience quick changes in atmosphere thickness unless they are on a highly eccentric orbit.

This would allow you to put a station in LKO that you could leave alone for a few days, weeks, or even months depending on its altitude, but you'd have to adjust its orbit every now and then. If this change were implemented, most people should feel like there hasn't been a significant change--the music still plays at 70km and they can still time warp at 50x. The atmospheric drag even at 80km would be very low and almost unnoticeable over only a few hours.

Edited September 27, 2013 by thereaverofdarkness

[boomerdog2000]

I don't understand what is the benefit of changing this?

[lajoswinkler]

The benefit is realism. I like it.

However that means if you went to an interplanetary mission and you warped to a maximum (which is too slow, I'd include one more warp speed), everything in this "termosphere" would decay in a second.

[Rage097]

Orbital decay is annoying. Hence why I enjoy its absence in KSP. and Lajoswinkler, Realism isn't always enjoyable or fun for the player. If anything this would be fairly obnoxious. But interesting idea, nonetheless.

[lajoswinkler]

But he isn't suggesting an atmosphere that extends thousands of kilometres away from Kerbin. It's just 120 km.

It would open up new missions of reaching the station and giving it a boost into a higher orbit every now and then, just as ISS gets.

Edited September 27, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Tw1]

People would just move everything up to the new atmosphere limit.

[OdinYggd]

It really wouldn't work well with the game engine.

Right now objects that are not being actively controlled go on rails, and experience effectively zero forces of any kind.

To make atmospheric drag work you would have to factor that in to objects on rails, which means physics calculations at all times for every object to be in a detectable atmosphere.

KSP would lock right up after a few vessels were launched if you did that.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Due to the way atmosphere thinning works, a ship in a 100km orbit would probably take months to dip below 90km. I might be wrong about that ballpark figure but I think it would be a very long time. The thing that makes me want it most is because the top of the atmosphere doesn't really feel like the top. It should actually be basically gone at the top. But I also think having atmospheric stations would be good fun. Most people would move their stations higher, yes, and that's a choice they have to ponder and spend fuel on.

[Superfluous J]

Like many others, I hate this idea. It adds reasons to launch new missions, but it adds the wrong reasons. Maintaining something you've already done for all eternity is not fun (for me), doing new things is.

For similar reasons, I don't want part degredation. I don't want my solar panels to degrade over time and need replacements. I don't want to have to truck up air and water and bring back trash. I LIKE that my Kerbals don't need to eat or breathe. If they added that sort of thing I don't know if I'd find even getting to Mun all that fun, little alone planning a Duna mission.

[dlrk]

I disagree VERY strongly with 5th horseman.I think logistics can be part of the fun of a game like KSP. I like the idea of servicing stations for air and water, replacement parts etc.

I find the above kinda of post VERY frustrating. Simplicity and easiness is boring, as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe when life support and similar is added, an 'arcade' mode without it could be an option?

[Superfluous J]

I disagree VERY strongly with 5th horseman.I think logistics can be part of the fun of a game like KSP. I like the idea of servicing stations for air and water, replacement parts etc.

I find the above kinda of post VERY frustrating. Simplicity and easiness is boring, as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe when life support and similar is added, an 'arcade' mode without it could be an option?

While I respect your ideas, I'm as frustrated with them as you are with mine.

I want, some day, to make a far-flung Kerbal Interplanetary Empire. I want multiple stations around each world and moon. I want colonies. I want mining operations and living centers. I want to build this up on my own from that first launch of a StayPutnik, through the trials and tribulations of my Munpollo and Minpollo missions, to my first failed and eventual successful runs to Duna and Moho and even Eve. If this is what you consider "arcade mode" then so be it. That's exactly what I want.

What I don't want is 3 guys to die on my 3rd Eeloo station because I forgot to empty the septic tank while building all this other stuff. Or even worse, to end up spending all my time dealing with that kind of crap (excuse the pun) instead of the actual fun stuff.

[lajoswinkler]

5thHorseman, if you don't want to maintain your stations, you can put them above 120km. The purpose of this suggestion is to open up new missions.

I often wonder what the hell am I going to do after everything is in its orbit. I can't dump stuff forever. Any computer will clog up, it's just a matter of amount of objects in orbit.

OP's idea is great, but the atmosphere doesn't need an extension in height. It can be a change in scale height, so that let's say 50km becomes what is now 69km, and 50-69km is the ever thinner region with the described drag.

Unfortunately, we see it's impossible.

[LongHairedHuman]

5thHorseman, if you don't want to maintain your stations, you can put them above 120km.

Why, if it's so easy to do that, would anyone put orbits below 120km?

[lajoswinkler]

Read the thread. To create interesting missions. If your station's orbit is decaying, every now and then you need to push it back up. For example every three months you launch a mission to boost its orbit.

It would be a great thing for the career mode. Sandbox is cool, but it's pretty much pretending to actually do something. You rely on your imagination. This would add a need to mitigate an impending doom scenario for your station filled with Kerbals.

[allmappedout]

The issue is that with timewarp and without kerbal alarm clock or the equivalent, very quickly your well put together space stations simply fall back to Kerbin. As Odin also said, the physics calculations that would have to kick in after they pass through into the lower atmosphere and thus 'off-rails' would grind the game to a halt.

I agree wholly with 5thhorseman here. Whilst in theory it's a good idea, all it does is increase the dV requirement of getting out from Kerbin (since most people would now launch to 120km), and you'd spend more time fiddling a station back up to a specific altitude than actually flying missions - this wouldn't be a problem were you able to control multiple objects at once, but since the station has to take your focus, it means you can't do anything else.

It would be frustrating, and, ultimately, less fun. Also, what's to stop someone else coming in and arguing for an even higher limit with an even smaller air pressure? The atmosphere doesn't just switch off, and someone would argue that at 150km, it would take years for your orbits to decay, but I want that in the game FOR REALISM. Eventually you would have to spend 95% of your time doing correction burns for satellites and stations rather than actually launching and blowing stuff up, which to most people is what this game is about.

[leax256]

I say this stuff is best left for a mod. There has to be a balance between gameplay and realisim, this destroys gameplay.

[Raticon]

Some mechanic of orbital decay should be included, as it makes it necessary to refuel stations and other facilities and keeping track of them. And satellites would need to be maintained here and there as to not just be launched and loiter there for all eternity.

Granted, there is satellites launched in the '60s still up there in our world, contributing to an increasing mass of junk and scrap in orbit, but many satellites decay and burn in the atmosphere as well, Sputnik 1 is a prime example, as well as MIR which was boosted to a higher orbit multiple times, as well as some of the older Saljut stations until they met their demise when the atmosphere gripped them.

EDIT: To clarify, it would be a very weak force decaying these objects, not too strong and not too frequent as it would be a tedium to manage 10+ objects at the same time.

[fatfluffycat]

Orbit Decay is just no, it should be a option, for those who want it.

[boomerdog2000]

When you run an eeloo or jool mission that can last for years you don't want to constantly have to jump back and manage stations and satellites.

[Superfluous J]

5thHorseman, if you don't want to maintain your stations, you can put them above 120km.

Sorry, I was replying to the more specific reply to my first post, regarding having to restock stations with water and food and whatnot. I'm not wholeheartedly against being able to orbit in the wispy upper atmosphere, but I for one would never do it. I am wholeheartedly against anything that would force me to revisit a space station lest it kill the Kerbals on board, with no option otherwise.

Your idea gives me an option otherwise so it's not bad. However, as others have said why raise the magic number to 120 from 70 when all it'll do is force us to use more fuel to get to 120? And when we all do that, will you want to raise it to 150? Or 200?

[Eric S]

Due to the way atmosphere thinning works, a ship in a 100km orbit would probably take months to dip below 90km.

It wouldn't work this way, as OdinYggd stated. If you don't have the craft focused, it's on rails, and if it's on rails, there's no forces acting on it, it just stays in its existing orbit. Placing a force or decay on that orbit would break the whole "on rails" concept the way it's done in the game.

So basically, just increasing the top level of the atmosphere wouldn't achieve the effect you want unless you focus on the craft for those months it would take, and anything beyond that would mean an amount of work put into the game for a "feature" that most people wouldn't care about and would hardly have unanimous support among those that do care about.

I just don't see the addition of this idea being worth more than the cost and effort of doing it. I can see that there is probably no feature that would have universal support among the user base as being worth the time and effort, but I'm sure that there are many things that would have a better return for the effort invested.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I'm happy to see that this topic is experiencing so much healthy debate. I'd like to clarify a few things:

1.) Many of you dislike tedium. That's fine. Things that increase tedium like maintaining orbits and managing supplies are things you can train your kerbals to do when you're not around, as mentioned by one of the developers at some point about kerbals managing minor tasks. You would then only be required to make adequate arrangements before launch. For maintaining a LKO in atmosphere, this would entail leaving fuel on-board with a thrust mechanism so that your Kerbals could maintain the orbit for you. This would also be even easier to implement because you could actually have the craft on rails during time warp as long as there was fuel left, and the fuel would deplete at a regular, unchanging rate.

2.) There would in fact be an excuse not to raise the atmosphere height above 120km. It may take months for you to descend 10km at a 100km orbit, well it will take years at 110km, and decades at 120km. Most of you don't realize this because you don't fully understand how scale height works. With a scale height of 5km, every time you increase your altitude by 5km, the air thickness decreases by a factor of e (2.71828). A 25km change decreases the pressure to 2/3rds of one percent of what it was. At 120km, the air is about at the thinness where in real life the air will be blown away by the solar wind, so it would be unrealistic to extend it to 150km. But even if it did go to 150km, it wouldn't matter since most people don't run a space program long enough to lose an orbit in the 120-150km range.

3.) Ships disappearing suddenly at high time warp or game grinding to a halt when they start falling back in -- There are several ways to handle this. I had two ideas I liked:

- the easy method: put ships on rails at higher time warps, similar to how they can currently swing down to 30km in time warp and not fall in.

- the "alarm clock" method: put an altitude limit on high time warp levels (only for active ships, not debris), and when a ship descends too far and slows your time warp, you'd get a warning about a ship about to be lost, and you'd have the option to either ignore it (and risk losing the craft) or go to it and fix the issue before jumping back to where you were.

And of course anyone wanting to avoid this tedium has two simple options:

a. put ships in orbit greater than 100km

b. leave fuel on board and train your kerbals to fix the altitude while you're away

4.) programming difficulties implementing this: I understand that the current game setup doesn't lend to allowing objects beyond 2.2km to run in physics warp. I know this could require some extra programming and I don't know how much. Maybe it's actually really easy, maybe it's super hard. I'm just brainstorming ideas to help the developers understand what we want. I'll leave it up to them to gauge feasibility versus popularity.

[boomerdog2000]

It just doesn't sound like it adds anything fun or useful to the game, it would just take up the devs time.

Time that could be better spent perfecting career mode and building a better aerodynamic model for the atmosphere we already have.

[Seelenamt]

Edited November 9, 2019 by Seelenamt

[lajoswinkler]

I think the OP's statement:

"Most of you don't realize this because you don't fully understand how scale height works."

is actually the key problem here. As the poll has showed, most people on KSP forums are young teenagers. Logarithmic distribution is not something people naturally take for granted or understand, not even when you draw it. Our brains work on simple counting. 1, 2, 3, 4, not 1, 10, 100, 1000, or with base e.

Boosting your station into orbit can add experience points in the career mode, that's one example. Depending on the height of the station, boosting might be needed every 3 months, 6 months, and research satellites might stay there for decades. It all depends on the height and the surface of the object. I'd be happy to launch such missions, then rendezvous, dock and boost something.

True realism would be adding variable atmosphere density as a consequence of Kerbol's variable activity. That would be kind of pain in the ass at it would be unpredictable.

Edited September 28, 2013 by lajoswinkler