Debunking myths about Kerbals and their 'verse(Post your own myths and debunk them)!

[OneEyedShark]

"The game is in an incomplete state" isn't the leading theory?!

This is a valid thread with valid points.

the door is there ( ∙_∙)>

;D

Edited January 21, 2014 by OneEyedShark

[Charzy]

If you're intentionally posting counter-points for "fun", then it looks a lot like trolling. I don't mind spoiling that.

This is a valid thread with valid points.

Oh no. People making theories about an incomplete game for roleplay purposes. How very terrible. Let us ready the stakes to burn these heretics at once.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

OR it could be magic!

Do you really not get that this crap is exactly what the OP has an issue with?

Why does it bother you or the OP so much

[sjwt]

Lets all try to stay on track and remain civil, jokingly or not.

[The Error]

Trolling aside, I apologize if other people's jokes and ideas bother you, OP & Co., but sometimes it's more fun to invent wacky explanations for stuff than just keep calling it like it is.

Also, the semantics module in my brain is screaming. These aren't myths posted, they're explanations for odd occurrences. Not the same thing.

[LethalDose]

Why does it bother you or the OP so much

I can't speak for the OP, but it bugs me for a number of reasons. The big ones include:

• They frequently rely on a horrid understanding of the underlying real world science.
  
• They're used as counter-arguments to improving the game design.
  
• They aren't based on any dev statements and address an incomplete game, and therefore cannot possibly be interpreted to represent designer intent.
  
• They're frequently contradictory (They're photosynthetic AND subterranean? Are you serious!?)
  
• They're completely unnecessary and only serve to spread bad information.
  

I honestly don't give a crap how you role-play your game, or explain the inconsistencies. What bothers me is when these totally unsupported concepts are held up as being "correct" or "intentional" when they're just omitted parts of a game in development.

It bothers me when these are held as "realistic" because so much actual science has to be ignored to make them appear to be realistic. If you have to rely on so much supposition to make your explanation work, you're so far separated from reality already that the "realistic" argument has lost all meaning.

It bothers me that the devs might see this and find another excuse drop or half-way design features because they think the player-base is satisfied with the product "as-is".

[Kasuha]

If we come from the premise that Kerbals are set of variables in a computer game then this thread has no point. Behavior of variables in a computer is very well known - they acquire values from certain predefined and largely known ranges, remain set that way until known events which lead to their changes and that's all there's about it, case closed.

To have any myths to discuss, we need to come from the premise that the game depicts some real Kerbals from a galaxy far, far away which may have certain yet unknown treats. In that case there's no point discussing them from the point of them being part of a computer game, or what developers said about them because even they may not know all details yet.

Personally I think the second way is the more fun one.

[DJEN]

-Jool is a superjovian-

Incorrect. It merely gives you the impression of it due to its ridiculously oversized moons.

Also, its orbital properties indicate that it has the mass of Jupiter.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I can't speak for the OP, but it bugs me for a number of reasons. The big ones include:

• They frequently rely on a horrid understanding of the underlying real world science.
  
• They're used as counter-arguments to improving the game design.
  
• They aren't based on any dev statements and address an incomplete game, and therefore cannot possibly be interpreted to represent designer intent.
  
• They're frequently contradictory (They're photosynthetic AND subterranean? Are you serious!?)
  
• They're completely unnecessary and only serve to spread bad information.
  

I honestly don't give a crap how you role-play your game, or explain the inconsistencies. What bothers me is when these totally unsupported concepts are held up as being "correct" or "intentional" when they're just omitted parts of a game in development.

It bothers me when these are held as "realistic" because so much actual science has to be ignored to make them appear to be realistic. If you have to rely on so much supposition to make your explanation work, you're so far separated from reality already that the "realistic" argument has lost all meaning.

It bothers me that the devs might see this and find another excuse drop or half-way design features because they think the player-base is satisfied with the product "as-is".

We're a pretty long way from having fun "explanations" why kerbals are green. Nobody in their right minds is pushing kerbal photosynthesis or super-strong heads as a reality, it's a game and people are coming up with funny justifications for empirical observations of the objects in the game.

[rdfox]

Personally, I'd *like* the superstrong head concept becoming canonical. It's just silly enough to work, and would mean the devs don't have to fix that particular bug.

Actually, that could also explain why Kerbals have such large heads compared to the rest of their bodies--not only are their skulls thick and very dense (which also explains their poor balance while getting back up!), but they also evolved to have most, if not all, of their most vital organs actually located within the skull, which would allow them to survive massive shock damage to the rest of their bodies long enough to heal up. (Think about the accelerative loadings generated when you land on your head--that'd cause most of the rest of the bones in the body to break hard.) Perhaps their brains are cushioned in a thick layer of fairly viscous fluid that acts as a shock absorber, making it harder for them to smash against the inside of the skull, making them much more resistant to closed-head injuries?

As for the photosynthesis explanation, given that we know they eat snacks, I'm of the theory that Kerbals have sort of a hybrid biology (actually akin to Tamaraneans and yellow sun-exposed Kryptonians in the DC Universe) whereby they can generate a minimal baseline amount of energy through photosynthesis, enough to handle routine "staying alive" functions, but anything requiring more energy than your basic "bedrest" levels of activity requires consuming energy-containing foodstuffs, water, and oxygen to operate it. In fact, this would vastly reduce the life support requirements for them, as they could act, to some degree, as their own oxygen supply and carbon dioxide scrubbers, since, during their sleep cycles, they'd be just photosynthesizing the energy to stay alive and thus *consuming* the CO2 and *producing* the oxygen (as opposed to more active periods, when they'd likely be net consumers of O2 and net producers of CO2).

Of course, this is just me spitballing here--remember, I'm the guy who, back in the days when KSP had only "fuel," instead of fuel and oxidizer, suggested that the way *that* worked with an Isp. that was too high for monopropellant was that the ship was designed to extract ammonia from the urine that Bill continuously produced, then use that to burn the fecal material that Bob continuously produced, using that to boil water to run a small steam turbine to generate electricity and electrolysize water into hydrogen and oxygen to burn in the engines. Sounds logical (in the days of only the original three-man Mark I capsule), until you start doing the chemistry to find out what the energy of burning cellulose (the primary component of feces) in ammonia is, and then remember that ammonia is NOT an oxidizing agent...

[The Error]

Put it this way, OP & Co. If these bugs get patched, we shall move on. If not, it's fun to assign them wacky explanations. And when people push these wacky explanations, I find they are almost never serious.

If it bothers you that much, ignore it.

[JimmyAgent007]

Wasnt Zan from farscape a plant? just blue? she had photosynthesis but also ate food. not trying to pour fuel on the fire that this thread apparently is but just something id like to mention to the people who wont treat it as a hostile challenge

[KvickFlygarn87]

Kerbals cannot survive massive falls with their heads. This is a bug.

Kerbals cannot survive massive temperatures. This is also a bug.

They're not bugs! They're hidden features!