Black Holes

[Mozziedoo]

Yes, this is self explanatory. Black holes which suck kerbals ships and kill the kerbals. I know, maybe some around the edge of the Kerbol System to prevent Kerbals from leaving?

[Deathsoul097]

I don't think this is a good idea, as even a small black hole "on the edge of the system" as you describe it would play hell with everything orbiting Kerbol, eventually consuming the entire system and creating a Quasar out of Kerbol, before completely devouring that as well.

[FenrirWolf]

A BH at the outskirts of the system wouldn't necessarily consume it, but it would probably have a large effect on the way the planets orbit since you're suddenly dealing with a binary star system.

Or it would if multi-body gravity were in the game, anyway. Either way it seems like a black hole would make more sense for if/when there are other systems at greater differences to explore.

[Kegereneku]

I don't think you understand what a black hole is, so before the thread get locked :

A black hole is exactly like a star : a huge mass

As Einstein described it, mass bend the space-time matrix and that attract things.

So Black-hole doesn't "suck" things, theoretically they are as safe to orbit than anything else. Problem arise when you meet their "surface" the Event Horizon from which nothing get out. That plus space-time distortion that will rip your ship in particle way before you get close.

What it mean is that you are basically asking the devs to put another "star" around Kerbol which, unless you put it absurdly far, would break all planet's orbit.

That aside, KSP physics can't deal with "n-body physics" and use a (planet > moon) simplification.

[Umlüx]

simply speaking: a black hole wouldnt prevent anything. you could try an visit it and orbit it.

only any attempt to land there would be fatal

plus: those things are MASSIVE. it would not orbit the sun, the whole system would orbit the BH.

[Kasuha]

Black holes should be put on the "already suggested" list IMO, it's getting suggested over and over again.

Black holes are pointless. It would be just empty SOI. If you think gravity lensing effect would be cool, note that you'll not be able to get close enough to see it. Planet-mass black hole (if stable) would be a few centimeters in diameter.

[Capt Snuggler]

while were on the topic of ruining the game, may I suggest in game transactions and subscription fee.

but seriously why do people keep suggesting black holes? my astrophysics is... non existent, but as I understand it black holes are one of the most immensely powerful forces in the universe and thus would need to be a phenomenally long distance from kerbol to prevent it from pulling the system apart.

I don't see how this could be added to the game without breaking it.

[Umlüx]

well on the other hand.. ksp IS a GAME.. and it would be pretty awesome to have one

so i can understand people asking.. even if the 'real' thing would probably disappoint them.

[crazyewok]

No

Unless ksp goes intersteller.

But black holes gave to buisness being in the kerbol sol

[crazyewok]

Black holes should be put on the "already suggested" list IMO, it's getting suggested over and over again.

Black holes are pointless. It would be just empty SOI. If you think gravity lensing effect would be cool, note that you'll not be able to get close enough to see it. Planet-mass black hole (if stable) would be a few centimeters in diameter.

Wrong about not being able to see it. A black hole is surrounded by a huge accrestion disc which is material being accelerated so fast round the event horizon its pulled apart and turned to plasma. Then it dissapears im the Event horizon.

[SRV Ron]

A Black Hole, if placed in the Kerbal System, would make it a binary star system which even Space Engine doesn't properly implement since it would be ripping material out of the orbiting star that is as close as this one;

You don't actually see a black hole. You only see the lensing effect as light is bent around and mirrored near its event horizon which appears black.

Regardless, until the Kerbal universe gets expanded beyond the Kerbal Solar System, don't expect anything like a black hole in the sim. The closest thing to one in the sim now is landing on Jool and falling through its surface.

[Kasuha]

Wrong about not being able to see it. A black hole is surrounded by a huge accrestion disc which is material being accelerated so fast round the event horizon its pulled apart and turned to plasma. Then it dissapears im the Event horizon.

Well sure, our several-centimeter-sized black hole would have a several-meter-sized accretion disk. For about a minute after you crash your ship to it.

Of course real black holes only have accretion disks if they still have some matter to feed on. A nearby star, for example. Very nearby. Which I kinda doubt would be this case. For instance the black hole at the center of our galaxy has probably no notable accretion disk at the moment.

[Mike the Mechanic]

What I would like is to be able to leave the SOI of Kerbol. Now what could be done is to let Kerbol orbit a 'black hole' - similar to our galaxy - which would allow to do something similar to the voyager missions and implementation of stars and stuff. This sounds simple, but given the problems with code (kerbol is the centre of the game engine, right?), floating point calculations (dock two ships in solar orbit, i dare you) and focus on other, more pressing issues, this should not be a focus of development right now

[Capt Snuggler]

For instance the black hole at the center of our galaxy has probably no notable accretion disk at the moment.

If it is at the center of our galaxy doesn't that mean that we ARE the accretion disk?.... I feel small.

[Kasuha]

If it is at the center of our galaxy doesn't that mean that we ARE the accretion disk?.... I feel small.

Technically our whole galaxy will end up there, yes. But the difference is that if you remove black hole from the middle of the accretion disk, its matter will all fly away. If you remove the black hole at the center of our galaxy, it will still keep together as well as before and not a single star will escape it due to that event.

[Capt Snuggler]

Technically our whole galaxy will end up there, yes. But the difference is that if you remove black hole from the middle of the accretion disk, its matter will all fly away. If you remove the black hole at the center of our galaxy, it will still keep together as well as before and not a single star will escape it due to that event.

WOW! did not know that! what force keeps the stars orbiting? is it like tidal kind of thing? like all the stars are flowing together, gravity pulling each other along?

[stupid_chris]

Black holes should be put on the "already suggested" list IMO, it's getting suggested over and over again.

Black holes are pointless. It would be just empty SOI. If you think gravity lensing effect would be cool, note that you'll not be able to get close enough to see it. Planet-mass black hole (if stable) would be a few centimeters in diameter.

Exactly. To be precise, a black hole the mass of the Moon would be about 2cm in diameter. Of event horizon that is.

A supermassive black hole the size of, say Gilly, is not anything you want to be near of.

Not for the "everything would be sucked in it" reason, because that's not true. Simply because the radiation emmited by black holes are not anything you want in your neighbourhood. Sudden bursts of high energy gamma rays are not nice.

Additionally, a black hole that size would have the mass of about one hundred suns. And the sun is ten times as massive as Kerbol. So even with in game densities, it would be 100 times more massive than Kerbol.

Really there's no interest at having a black hole in KSP. They aren't that interesting to see. It would just bug the crap out of the game probably.

That said, this isn't actually WNTS. So carry on, but everyone stay polite please, threads on black holes have a past to spin out of control.

[Serratus]

A supermassive black hole the size of, say Gilly, is not anything you want to be near of.

Exactly! I'm perfectly capable of annihilating my ships on my own, I don't really need competition in that regard

They aren't that interesting to see.

Was... was that... a pun?

[lajoswinkler]

WOW! did not know that! what force keeps the stars orbiting? is it like tidal kind of thing? like all the stars are flowing together, gravity pulling each other along?

AFAIK, it's mostly what is called dark matter. It's a fancy way of saying "we don't know what"-matter.

I'd like to see a black hole in KSP. 10 m event horizon, lensing, rips your ship apart (and Kerbals, just like the one in your sig) if you come too close, deep gravity well. But otherwise, orbitable entity at a reasonable distance.

[1greywind]

Technically our whole galaxy will end up there, yes.

WOW! did not know that! what force keeps the stars orbiting? is it like tidal kind of thing? like all the stars are flowing together, gravity pulling each other along?

I feel that many people here do not understand why matter in accretion disk is falling to body it orbits. It is not becouse "super dence gravity", it is becouse matter particles in disk are very close together and thus there is friction that is responsible for heating (and thus radiation) and outwards transfer of angular momentum. Without momentum loss, objects will not loose orbital speed and will not fall onto black hole just becouse it has scary name. Thus stars in galaxy that are resonably far away (more that tens of parsecs) from central supermassive black hole will never come closer to it.

[Wahgineer]

Well, when/if we get interstellar travel, we won't use wormholes. Why? To get a wormhole, you need a form of exotic matter that can be better put to use in a warp drive. You then take this material and line the inside of a black hole with it to create a wormhole. And since it is impossible for anything to get that close, it is safe to say that worm holes are impossible. Also, as it has been said before, black holes would only exist in the center of the galaxy, which would make using them as forms on interstellar travel useless.

[Majorjim!]

Technically our whole galaxy will end up there, yes. But the difference is that if you remove black hole from the middle of the accretion disk, its matter will all fly away. If you remove the black hole at the center of our galaxy, it will still keep together as well as before and not a single star will escape it due to that event.

You have contradicted yourself there Kasuha. By suggesting that our galaxy will "end up" in our central black hole you have implied that all matter in the galaxy is effectively on a decaying orbit around it.

You then say that if it is removed all matter in our galaxy will continue to rotate as before.

So, which one are you suggesting?

At present mankind is unaware of the mechanism that keeps the galaxy spinning as it does. the motion of the matter towards the edge of our galaxy is in violation of our current known 'laws' of physics.

MJ

Edited February 6, 2014 by Majorjim

[Kasuha]

You have contradicted yourself there Kasuha. By suggesting that our galaxy will "end up" in our central black hole you have implied that all matter in the galaxy is effectively on a decaying orbit around it.

I don't see any contradiction here. Gravity makes our "flat" 3D space not so flat and every orbit is ever so slightly spiralling inwards. That has nothing to do with black holes. The effect is not strong enough for us to have to care about it, but in some 10^100 years there won't be anything but black holes and photons. At least unless some other, yet unknown forces change something on that.

[Nebula]

Wrong about not being able to see it. A black hole is surrounded by a huge accrestion disc which is material being accelerated so fast round the event horizon its pulled apart and turned to plasma. Then it dissapears im the Event horizon.

This is not true. A planet mass black hole will hardly have anything surrounding it, especially if it's a wondering interstellar black hole. It would only be as massive as a planet, if anything it may have some asteroids in orbit around it. Kasuha is definitely right here. To even see the gravitational lensing you would have to be extremely close, and by that time you'd be dead.

The only possible way a black hole would be introduced into KSP is if KSP goes interstellar. Such a black hole (probably being a few times the mass of Sol and being surrounded by a nebula) would be to slingshot probes or spacecraft to distant stars at high velocities

[stupid_chris]

You have contradicted yourself there Kasuha. By suggesting that our galaxy will "end up" in our central black hole you have implied that all matter in the galaxy is effectively on a decaying orbit around it.

Considering every body in the galaxy only relatively to the black hole, you are right. But given the Milky Way is an N body problem counting a few hundred billion bodies, this isn't quite right. As every system, the galaxy is not a perfect one. There are energy losses from different sources. This is indeed causing most objects to slowly decay on their orbits towards the center. But needless to say that this is not a universal case. It is true to say the exapnsion of the universe is puyshing galaxies away from each other, but false to say this applies to every galaxy. The simpless example: the Milky Way is bound to collide and merge with the Andromeda galaxy in a few billion years.

At present mankind is unaware of the mechanism that keeps the galaxy spinning as it does. the motion of the matter towards the edge of our galaxy is in violation of our current known 'laws' of physics.

Paaaaaaaaartially false. We know what's going on. But not really at the same time.

The simple answer: dark matter. All you need to know is that it's massive, present in the galaxy, and keeping things flowing together.

The long answer: It does not react with conventional matter in any way (which implies it's invisible), and makes up about 70% of the mass of the universe. It's present in galactic cores, and it's repartition makes such that the arms of the galaxy floaw along with each other. Search it up a little, we've even have 3D maps of the repartition of dark matter in the universe. We have no idea what it's actually made of, how to identify it, how to know more about it. We just know it's there and we can observe it's effects on our surroundings. And even then to be fair, it could be a flaw in general relativity. To be fair, general relativity is flawed. For the simple reason it cannot explain everything. Dark matter is a "sensible patch". It works. At least for now.