Will there be any more solar systems?

[kBob]

@Steven M: I think while separate solar systems would be nice being able to reach other solar systems from Kerbal is what more people are interested in because once you've colonized the Kerbal system you would like to expand civilization farther out, i.e. exploit new worlds, not necessarily start over in a new system (but that could be fun too).

[NASAFanboy]

The problem with travelling to other solar systems is that they are FAR away. To give you an idea, the closest star to our solar system is Proxima Centauri, which is 40.3 trillion kilometers away or 40300000000000m. And that doesn't even have any planets. The closest confirmed planetary system is Epislon Eridani at 100 trillion km or 100000000000000m. To get there you would need a rocket of monumental proportions, you would have to chart your course VERY carefully, and you would have to build the craft in orbit as it couldn't possibly fit in the VAB. This craft file would be so big that even if you combined all of Earths hard-drives and USB's you would not have enough file space to store this thing, not to mention that KSP would be unable to handle it and crash on even a hint of loading, and even if KSP did work, no computer could run such a beast. So unless they add warp drives or some other mass propulsion system that is unamanglnable. Either that or you're going to have to chart some sort of clever course that matches you up with minimal fuel in which case you are going to have to time warp for centuries.

The only other way I see other planetary systems is if squad make solar systems not to scale with real life.

My friend, you are wrong. Oh, so fraking wrong.

Let me get this clear. Kerbals are unlike humans. You can throw three of them into a tin can in an highly elliptical solar orbit, and they will be happy. You can send them on suicide missions, and, try will be happy. So, there is no need for life support or any supplies. They will be happy. This will greatly decrease size of ship, allowing for more engines, more fuel, and more dV.

I have built orbital craft capable of reaching 0.2c that have not lagged my hard drive. These ships speed out if the solar system until they simply cannot go further. Any you claim this is nonsense.

Shall I trust what I have seen and done, or shall I trust the ranting posts of a million forumers who have never tried to repeat such feats?

I choose the former.

[Serratus]

0.2 c is the speed of a turtle. Before You go and try to reach another sol system with it, calculate how long will it take to travel 1 Light Year at that speed. Then add max warp speed KSP allows. Now You have a result. The result tells You You will be at the screen for a month.

[Comrade Jenkens]

You will be at the screen for a month.

I thought that the Kerbol system was scaled down by a factor of 10 though. That means it would only take 3 solid days at max warp to get there. .... Actually we probably need ftl then.

However I'd much rather the devs do a lot more work on the current system than adding new ones.

[pxi]

Two things that come to mind:

1: Generation ships. You don't need FTL if you're prepared to travel for a long time. Kerbals seem to be very suited for this kind of travel.

2: You can change ships. You do not need to spend hours looking at the ship in flight, you can do other things while the ship is en-route. Obviously this would be massively facilitated by something like Kerbal Alarm Clock, but could still be done without it.

[LaydeeDem]

Pre-0.20 that was going to be the next huge feature, along with resources. But suddenly it was decided that they were too complex. Because in KSP there is such a thing a complex now.

[Dunbaratu]

I thought that the Kerbol system was scaled down by a factor of 10 though. That means it would only take 3 solid days at max warp to get there. .... Actually we probably need ftl then.

However I'd much rather the devs do a lot more work on the current system than adding new ones.

The size of planets are scaled down from what they are in our solar system, but the laws of physics are NOT scaled down. They're the same. So basically, in order for surface gravity on Kerbin to match that of Earth, Kerbin had to be made a very dense planet to give it a similar mass to Earth despite being smaller in radius. That *had* to be done precisely because KSP *is* using the same universal constants for its laws of physics as the real universe uses. The gravitational constant G is the same, and therefore a smaller planet than Earth has to be denser than Earth to get the same gravity as Earth. Similarly, if it did bother to calculate the speed of light (it doesn't. Newtonian physics works at any speed in KSP) then it would use the same 'c' the real universe uses.

[Serratus]

Steven - Jenkens was talking about distance being 10x smaller; not the speed of light.

However I'd much rather the devs do a lot more work on the current system than adding new ones.

Agreed. One solar system is huge anyway!

2: You can change ships. You do not need to spend hours looking at the ship in flight, you can do other things while the ship is en-route. Obviously this would be massively facilitated by something like Kerbal Alarm Clock, but could still be done without it.

And that's basically the story of how I sent a probe to Eeloo a month ago, and it's still going even tho since then I've launched dozens other missions, built 3 space stations over Kerbin and its moons, refinery and so on. And I'm still 243 days away from course correction. Imagine the same for traveling to another star. You would NEVER get there.

[pxi]

Well never is probably a bit strong, but the point is a fair one. Still as you say you're using the same approach for eeloo, so it becomes a subjective thing in terms of how long is too long i guess.

[Shna_na]

Only skim read the replies (strapped for time) but here's my input:

I think that other solar systems will eventually be needed. There will come a time when the solar system just gets too cluttered, and the players will have been everywhere sufficiently. Yes, there's mods, but some people (me included) are reluctant to use them in conjunction with their normal game, making a separate save file and using them until the next game update. I think that in v1.X or in DLC, SQUAD should include other solar systems. There can be more than just FTL Drives to get you places like this, for example you could get there normally, it would take quite a few years though. But that's the point, it wouldn't. Kerbal Space Program is a game, not a simulation. Yes, it had fantastic realism in places but the spacing between bodies and the size of them is far inaccurate. We're fine with that. They could just be close(ish) together. As for reaching them, it would still take around 5 years. The devs, by this point, will probably have found a way to get an engine into the game that is balanced but will allow for great enough speeds that you can reach places like this fairly. If not, there's always the option of an advanced physwarp - one that allows for engine burning in, for example, 10x time warp. I'm not sure if this is entirely possible, but if it is then there could be a well balanced, advanced engine for this kind of burn. Maybe one with a high ISP and high-ish thrust, but high mass or something along these lines. I'm no expert, but I think that if they could get this kind of time warp up to scratch, an engine could be made that suits the game well and isn't OP/unbalanced.

[Charzy]

0.2 c is the speed of a turtle. Before You go and try to reach another sol system with it, calculate how long will it take to travel 1 Light Year at that speed. Then add max warp speed KSP allows. Now You have a result. The result tells You You will be at the screen for a month.

This stuck me as being odd, so I decided to do some calculations.

Proxima Centauri is 4.24 light years away, so it'll take us 4.24 years to get there at c.

However, the kerbal universe is a tenth the size of ours, so it'll only be 0.424 light years, so only 0.424 years to get there at c.

We're going at 0.2 c, so we'll divide 0.424 by 0.2, giving us 2.12 years.

Now we want that in days. So, multiply by 365.25 (accounting for leap years, here) to get 774.33 days.

Now to get that into hours, so let's multiply by 24. That gets us 18583.92 hours.

Obviously, we're not doing this real time. That'd be stupid. So let's apply time warp.

KSP allows for maximum time warp of x100 000

We divide 18583.92 by 100000 to get 0.18583.92 hours, or around eleven minutes.

With a warp drive part allowing us to get to relatively large fractions of c like this, and perhaps another level of time warp, it's far, far less time that you'd think (assuming my math is correct here) to get to a nearby star system.

[Serratus]

Charzy - Your math is correct. However I would like You to include the time it takes to thrust to, and break from 0.2 c (I'm assuming we're talking about chemical engines here, rather than some instant velocity changes). Otherwise my only concern is current patched conics system - at interstellar distances the error range and how node editing mechanic isn't very precise would inhibit chances of making a successful trip.

EDIT:

Here's an interesting question which didn't occur to me before - If we get another solar system, will it be stationary in relation to Kerbol? That obviously wouldn't be realistic, but is the difference in speeds and vectors between stars IRL significant enough to bother implementing it?

Edited February 12, 2014 by Serratus

[KerbMav]

Here's an interesting question which didn't occur to me before - If we get another solar system, will it be stationary in relation to Kerbol? That obviously wouldn't be realistic, but is the difference in speeds and vectors between stars IRL significant enough to bother implementing it?

I think stars close to our own wont change their distance that much if the voyage doesnt take that much time to be relevant.

My thoughts:

Lets say the FTL drive in KSP was only able to work at a certain distance from the gravity well of a star, just to set the rules. So, noone could use it to zap from Eeloo to Moho.

Once activated the craft is displaced in space and time, it would be set on rails and could not be selected, stopped etc. until it arrived at its destination, a high orbit around another star.

The new star system would run in a different instance of the game, virtually requiring it to repeat most of its loading process, unloading the Kerbol system.

[kBob]

I was just reading NASA on that and they say that for all intents and purposes they consider the stars to be fixed points as their motion, relative to Sol system, is very slow in our life times (exception being the stars near galactic center which orbit the black hole there). If you were building a multi-generation ship you might need to made some adjustments. Of course, as far as I know, we don't know where the Kerbal's system is...heck maybe it's not even in the Milky Way?

[Dodgey]

I've got a proposition, instead of discussing weather or not it should be implemented, how about we discuss how it should be implemented. For example, I think that if there is another system implemented there should be another gravity well that both systems would share that would be such a large distance away as it makes no difference, this (in my opinion) would simplify the implementation of the secondary system.

[Serratus]

My thoughts:

Lets say the FTL drive in KSP was only able to work at a certain distance from the gravity well of a star, just to set the rules. So, noone could use it to zap from Eeloo to Moho.

Once activated the craft is displaced in space and time, it would be set on rails and could not be selected, stopped etc. until it arrived at its destination, a high orbit around another star.

The new star system would run in a different instance of the game, virtually requiring it to repeat most of its loading process, unloading the Kerbol system.

Actually, that was the original plan Harv wrote about before SQUAD changed their minds on FTL engine. It also had mass-to-distance limit, making a single "engine" able to move only so much mass in one go, or moving more mass at smaller distance. It was also required to use electricity so it might run out half jump to destination. It was also going to have limited range so You couldn't make it to another system in one go. Last thing was that it was strictly moving You in the direction of there You pointed. At interstellar distances it would force course corrections in deep space as the FTL drives would have to cool-down after each jump. Oh, and You'd have to set a jump distance beforehand so if You overshoot it You either end up in deep space, or enter stars SoI and get ripped to shreds.

I would also suggest adding a minimal distance for a jump so that it's not too easy if You underestimate the distance - so You might end up very far out but not close enough for another jump, and have to work hard to get the ship in.

Dodgey - I'm generally against implementing binary systems since I think there would have to be too much compromises in physics to make it work (You hardly could have star share SoI but not influence each others planets), however non-binary systems (relatively) close by would be ok with me.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Serratus

[Dodgey]

Serratus, my reasoning is that since everything in the kerbal universe exists within a SOI, you orbiting a planet, the planet orbiting the sun ect. So I am not sure if you would be able to add in another star and not have it within the current stars SOI, so by adding in another "galactic" SOI you would get around that problem. If you have a better idea I am by no means an expert in the vaguest terms, a different instance would be another solution defeintly.

[Serratus]

Actually I misunderstood. I do believe there should be "galactic SoI" that Kerbol and other stars are in. I thought You meant that the second star and Kerbol should have ONE shared SoI which would make it a binary system. So we're good.

[Dodgey]

That's good, reading back over it I can see how you got confused.

[RatchetinSpace]

I like your logic with the kerbal life support systems, if we assume the kerbals don't require any life support, (like say oxygen) then why do they have space suits? Anyway, at 0.2 c you are reaching the nearest star in about 21 years, assuming you're even heading in the right direction which requires precise calculation due to the distances (interplanetary operation is bad enough). Anyway, I was pointing out that you would have to reach light speed in order to make any sort of progress which would require a massive rocket, I am refrencing Scott Manleys video on the topic, he does all the calculation, its a brilliant video.

[Darnok]

They could add FTL propulsion like it was in BSG, where you had to manually pick numbers (coordinates) and after that you could jump there. If you would try to guess jump coords you could end up inside star or even asteroid

So only way to have 100% safe coordinates would be to send probe first and then jump to that probe. IMO it wouldn't be that bad and still after FTL jump you would have to use rocket engines to put your craft in orbit(!!!) because your craft would have 0 m/s speed. Looking at fuel costs and physics it would make sense to jump between solar systems, but jumping between planets would cost lots of fuel anyway to burn from 0 m/s to circular orbit.

[Iwanttohelp]

I think that maybe in space, you would randomly come accross a broken ship, come aboard and see like these new navigation systems, you bring it back to kerbin you study it and then you get science for that? That would be pretty cool

[nonot8946]

To explore other solar systems requires getting there, which is the main problem.

I am wondering if the developers could define an area called interstellar space SOI, where one could time accelerate billions/tens of billions of time speed, rather than the current max of 100,000. In interstellar space there would be almost no physics, perhaps even no acceleration. You are simply passing time. This would be the most realistic means, but perhaps prevents problems with the current implementation of the physics engine, which is why all physics would be turned off in this region, and no accelerations allowed. You are simply refused to turn your ship/fire your engines because the interstellar region is causing unknown interference with Kerbal tech and the built in safety mechanisms have shut these parts down until the sensors indicate the parts are working nominally.

[Tery215]

They could add FTL propulsion like it was in BSG, where you had to manually pick numbers (coordinates) and after that you could jump there. If you would try to guess jump coords you could end up inside star or even asteroid

So only way to have 100% safe coordinates would be to send probe first and then jump to that probe.

Yeah no. It's more like:

Guess coords, (100 - 10^-50)% chance of not hitting anything.

[RatchetinSpace]

This stuck me as being odd, so I decided to do some calculations.

Proxima Centauri is 4.24 light years away, so it'll take us 4.24 years to get there at c.

However, the kerbal universe is a tenth the size of ours, so it'll only be 0.424 light years, so only 0.424 years to get there at c.

We're going at 0.2 c, so we'll divide 0.424 by 0.2, giving us 2.12 years.

Now we want that in days. So, multiply by 365.25 (accounting for leap years, here) to get 774.33 days.

Now to get that into hours, so let's multiply by 24. That gets us 18583.92 hours.

Obviously, we're not doing this real time. That'd be stupid. So let's apply time warp.

KSP allows for maximum time warp of x100 000

We divide 18583.92 by 100000 to get 0.18583.92 hours, or around eleven minutes.

With a warp drive part allowing us to get to relatively large fractions of c like this, and perhaps another level of time warp, it's far, far less time that you'd think (assuming my math is correct here) to get to a nearby star system.

Your math is correct, however the man claiming to make an orbital craft that meets 0.2 c needs to consider the problems with interstellar travel. You're going 0.2 c AT KERBIN. Anyone who has travelled to Eeloo will know that the gravity from Sol takes its toll on the speed of your ships. I was warping for hours because my craft had slowed down to 500m/s due to Sol's gravity despite leaving kerbin going 5000m/s. While thats alot slower than 0.2 c it shows that the gravity from the sun would slow you down escaping it and you'd have to compensate for that slowing if you want to reach another star system. Then you have to worry about slowing down (intense areobreaking will kill KSP's physics). And thats assumeing the star you reach has planets. Not all of them do and the nearest planet bearing star to Earth is a whopping 10.5 light years away.