A theory for why Kerbin's gravity is disproportionate

[Kialar]

Or maybe it was just programmed that way?

Unbelievable pragmatic solution!

[Panzerbeard]

I blame Kerb'thulu.

Damn cosmic monstrosities from the realm of nightmares messin' with ma physics!

[leax256]

gravitational constant, it's a number used to determine the gravitational attraction between two objects. the ksp universe just has a larger one.

[Juanfro]

The cores of the planets are made of pure stupidity, courage and screams. That provides high gravity and an endless suply of Kerbals.

[lajoswinkler]

If the escape velocity at the event horizon of a black hole is C, then further in it must be higher than C. Yes?

Or, if NOTHING can be faster than C, and if density goes up to infinity at C, then a black hole must be a zero thickness, infinite density shell surrounding.... what?

It boggles the mind!

Yes, after the event horizon, escape velocity is >c.

A black hole, as we today understand it, is a point-like structure (zero dimensions) of infinite density surrounded by a blob of event horizon, a photon sphere and, if you add actual stuff around it, an accretion disc which glows in x-rays the closest to the event horizon. If the hole spins, and probably all of them do, the event horizon is not a perfect sphere and the singularity might be a torus, though I'm not sure how thick would it be. If it was zero thickness, it would be a circle... or maybe a ring? I don't think even people like Hawking can claim such things.

All in all, black holes do not look like flat holes of blackness. They twist the spacetime and even if there's nothing for them to suck, they still appear as rings of light with black centers.

For some reason film makers depict them as objects that suck everything. They can be orbited without a problem if you're not extremely close.

In fact, if a ship would enter its orbit, I don't see how it could ever lower its periapsis low enough to reach the unstable orbit region. If you'v ever tried to approach Kerbol, you know how tough that is. Well it's even tougher with a black hole.

That's why the accretion disc is furiously glowing in the first place. Objects get stuck in its stable orbits and they pound into each other, increasing their temperature. As you approach the event horizon, temperature and density get higher so x-rays emission starts. As they release energy, they drop further down and are ultimately inside the event horizon. They still behave the same way, but their photons no longer exit the hole. Further down, unstable orbits are encountered and stuff quickly gets just sucked in, being broken to fundamental particles by the tidal forces.

Maybe things inside are different. Maybe the matter doesn't get squashed to singularity, but remains in a totally degenerate state, hidden from our view forever.

[HeadHunter67]

The cores of the planets are made of pure stupidity, courage and screams.

In other words, the forums?

[Kerbart]

Degenerate matter? Could that explain it?

Last time I checked my brains were still in my head, not inside a planetary core. So I doubt that's the case.

[lajoswinkler]

Degenerate matter? Could that explain it?

A sinful type of matter, banished to hell, according to Catholic church.

Joking aside, it's a collection of atipical states of matter encountered at extremely high pressures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

[jocax188723]

Magaratheans.

Hey, when in doubt, Douglas Adams.

[animalcross]

Scott Manley suggested that the constant of gravitation is higher in the Kerbal universe.

[Asimov]

Changing the constant of gravitation would do strange things to the sun...

[fatfluffycat]

Its because the devs didn't want super big planets that where to much for people PCs to handle, and took a long time too get an orbit.

The game world is scaled down for game-play reasons

[RuBisCO]

The reason is balonium... or unoptanium, or something like that.

[AlienGrandMaster]

Simple answer, kerbal unit of measurements are just a lot larger than our own. We don't know this, but kerbals are really giants.

[Jaybtlr]

When curious fan-theories for kerbal space program lead into reading up about quantum tunneling.... .22 cant download fast enough

[SSR Kermit]

as a side note, despite this seemingly large constant the time a real space craft reaches Kerbin orbital speeds is about 1 minute 50 seconds. The recent spacex falcon launch took just under 8 minutes to LEO.

On topic, if the constant of gravitation was an order of magnitude larger, even something like a building complex or worse yet-- a mountain-- would seriously screw with the local gravity field.... Perhaps not life-threatening, but definitely noticeable.

I prefer to think it's some exotic interaction that provides extra 'virtual' mass and a bunch of kermions and anti-kermions

[rholtsla98]

Or maybe it was just programmed that way?

Oooohhhh we got a smartass over here

[Krupski]

They [black holes] can be orbited without a problem if you're not extremely close.

In fact, if a ship would enter its orbit, I don't see how it could ever lower its periapsis low enough to reach the unstable orbit region.

Although a spacecraft theoretically could orbit a black hole, in reality only the exact center of mass of the vehicle would "feel" zero G. Any other area would feel a positive or negative gravity gradient due to being located elsewhere than the center of mass.

That's why NASA now uses the term "microgravity" for vehicles on orbit. First of all, the orbiting vehicle is perturbed away from a "perfect" orbit by solar wind, atmospheric drag, astronauts moving around, etc... but also only the exact center of mass feels "zero G".

Because gravity decreases with distance from the body, objects inside, say, the Space Shuttle, might feel +0.0001 G in one area of the spacecraft and -0.0001G somewhere else. That difference is the gravity gradient.

Now imagine orbiting a black hole. The gravity gradient might be something like +1000 G in one spot and -1000 G in a different spot. That gradient would certainly kill any living occupant orbiting a black hole, and would probably crush the spacecraft into a very small sphere (all points trying to get to the center of mass).

Crazy stuff....

[Garek]

Actually, the gradient would not compress the vessel, but tear it apart, because stuff below the CoM gets pulled toward the orbited body faster than the CoM, which in turn gets pulled faster than stuff further out.

[Starwhip]

Although a spacecraft theoretically could orbit a black hole, in reality only the exact center of mass of the vehicle would "feel" zero G. Any other area would feel a positive or negative gravity gradient due to being located elsewhere than the center of mass.

That's why NASA now uses the term "microgravity" for vehicles on orbit. First of all, the orbiting vehicle is perturbed away from a "perfect" orbit by solar wind, atmospheric drag, astronauts moving around, etc... but also only the exact center of mass feels "zero G".

Because gravity decreases with distance from the body, objects inside, say, the Space Shuttle, might feel +0.0001 G in one area of the spacecraft and -0.0001G somewhere else. That difference is the gravity gradient.

Now imagine orbiting a black hole. The gravity gradient might be something like +1000 G in one spot and -1000 G in a different spot. That gradient would certainly kill any living occupant orbiting a black hole, and would probably crush the spacecraft into a very small sphere (all points trying to get to the center of mass).

Crazy stuff....

Yes, that's true. There was a book called "Neutron Star" a while back that mentioned this fact, an example is when the main character dropped a lighter and it flew about ten feet forward toward the prow of the ship, and made a sound like it fell off of a hundred story building.

[radonek]

Depends on size of the black hole. Large ones in centers of the galaxies can have tidal forces small enough you could reach the event horizon unshredded.

[Krupski]

Actually, the gradient would not compress the vessel, but tear it apart, because stuff below the CoM gets pulled toward the orbited body faster than the CoM, which in turn gets pulled faster than stuff further out.

Gosh you are right. Need to finish my coffee before I post!

Thinking about it though, ANY place at the proper altitude for the orbital velocity the craft has would be the "zero G" point. So wouldn't the craft be PULLED into a thin "wire" (ultimately becoming a semi or complete RING) orbiting the black hole?

[Garek]

I don't know about that, but I read somewhere that planetary rings can be the remnants of moons pulled apart by this effect (or the material of moons which didn't even form because of that).

[Tidus Klein]

The theory is simple sense kerbals are smaller and they live on a smaller planet there for to them what would be 1g

would be like 0.7g to us and so on.

there easy.

[Krupski]

I don't know about that, but I read somewhere that planetary rings can be the remnants of moons pulled apart by this effect (or the material of moons which didn't even form because of that).

I thought about it more and now I think THIS would happen:

Going clockwise, I think the ship would stretch more and more, then finally snap, 1/2 being pulled into the black hole and the other half zipping away.

(the circle is the orbital path of the sphere).

My brain is beginning to hurt again.