Asteroid spawning should be reduced...

[Stargate525]

Can't you untrack asteroids ? I remember that you can track an asteroid, check where it'll go, then untrack it and it will eventually disappear.

Yes, yes you can.

And I'd like to see the same amount of asteroids, but spawned anywhere in the system. Some of those Joolian asteroids being flung in to explore, etc.

[Dweller_Benthos]

Good information here, thanks everyone. Nice to know untracked asteroids just vanish in a puff if you're not looking at them. I'm just going to untrack all the ones that are orbiting the sun, no sense to track them otherwise, and as noted, if I want to use one for something, my own tests have shown tracking a few for 10 minutes or so will get you one in the size & orbit you want.

I do like the idea of asteroids spawning elsewhere in the system, too, that would make it more interesting.

[Kasuha]

The reason people track every asteroid is that you can't tell which ones have a danger of impacting Kerbin if you don't. While the game allows that to happen without consequence people won't assume that. They'll assume they MUST check for that danger.

The matter is, NASA asteroid redirect mission is not aimed at saving Earth from danger of asteroid impact. It is about catching a genuine asteroid to allow astronauts and scientists to investigate it directly. Such asteroid does not necessarily have to be on collision course and is small enough to be redirected; likely small enough to pose no danger to Earth even if it was on collision course.

KSP ARM is the same, these asteroids do not mean any danger to Kerbin even if they hit it.

[pxi]

I posted elsewhere that I would like some control over the asteroid spawning rate.

I am fully aware that you can track/untrack/just-ignore-them. I was envisioning:

* being able to set a spawn rate for example between 0% and 200%.

* being able to restrict the sizes that spawn - eg only class e, or classes c-e.

* being able to control their initial distance from the sun.

* option to make them tracked by default.

On the just ignore them bit, this feels wrong when you are trying to impose a 'gotta catch em all' playstyle on yourself.

[Guest]

I've played around with impact effect calculator, and it turned out that a size E asteroid would, in fact, be a problem for Earth. Not a civilization-ending event, but it would cause some serious damage. Class E impacting Kerbin (which is much smaller) could possibly be a terrible disaster.

[Stargate525]

I've played around with impact effect calculator, and it turned out that a size E asteroid would, in fact, be a problem for Earth. Not a civilization-ending event, but it would cause some serious damage. Class E impacting Kerbin (which is much smaller) could possibly be a terrible disaster.

but considering they come in at about 100m/s and BOUNCE... >.>

[Ziff]

I have never tracked a single asteroid and never had one show up on the map. It's really that simple, no need to lower their spawn rate.

[Kasuha]

I've played around with impact effect calculator, and it turned out that a size E asteroid would, in fact, be a problem for Earth. Not a civilization-ending event, but it would cause some serious damage. Class E impacting Kerbin (which is much smaller) could possibly be a terrible disaster.

We could argue that Chelyabinsk meteor was about four times more massive than biggest E class asteroids, entered Earth atmosphere at five times the speed of KSP asteroids, and still did not do any damage that could be even remotely considered "problem for Earth". But that's irrelevant because KSP has its own universe and Kerbin is protected by its atmosphere much better than Earth - any object that falls through it vaporizes at 23 km altitude unless you accompany it and make sure it gets through.

[Dunbaratu]

I've played around with impact effect calculator, and it turned out that a size E asteroid would, in fact, be a problem for Earth. Not a civilization-ending event, but it would cause some serious damage. Class E impacting Kerbin (which is much smaller) could possibly be a terrible disaster.

Exactly. Like I alluded to before, the reason this happens is because it's a case where recognizing that there's no danger requires knowing how the KSP implementation differs from reality. Using real world information and intuiting that it's the same in KSP leads to the mistaken notion that you'd better track every asteroid you can find just in case. Until you fail to do so and let an asteroid land on Kerbin and just go "thunk" on the ground with no effect, you don't realize it's okay to just let it happen.

[cantab]

I've played around with impact effect calculator, and it turned out that a size E asteroid would, in fact, be a problem for Earth. Not a civilization-ending event, but it would cause some serious damage. Class E impacting Kerbin (which is much smaller) could possibly be a terrible disaster.

What calculator and what values did you put in? Because I used http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/, and a 36 metre diameter dense rocky asteroid, weighing ~70,000 metric tons so much heavier even than our class Es, coming in at 17 km/s, would explode in the upper atmosphere with a force of about 2 Megatons TNT. Even directly below the explosion there would be no damage from the blast, it's far enough away. The worst that could happen is fragments denting the odd car or house.

Remember that the real-world ARM is not a mission to deflect a killer asteroid, but to tow and study a small harmless one. Heck, I believe anything bigger than an A or maybe a B class is way beyond what NASA are considering moving - but then NASA do have to pay for their rockets.

Edited April 12, 2014 by cantab

[NERVAfan]

We could argue that Chelyabinsk meteor was about four times more massive than biggest E class asteroids, entered Earth atmosphere at five times the speed of KSP asteroids, and still did not do any damage that could be even remotely considered "problem for Earth". But that's irrelevant because KSP has its own universe and Kerbin is protected by its atmosphere much better than Earth - any object that falls through it vaporizes at 23 km altitude unless you accompany it and make sure it gets through.

And the 5x speed means 25x kinetic energy, so yeah, significantly less dangerous than Chelyabinsk even without the weird-physics deletion of them.

Also, I believe KSP asteroids are quite low density, and IIRC those tend to airburst more than iron-nickel ones (is that correct)? So yeah, I think they would mostly not be much of a problem.

[Dunbaratu]

Also, I believe KSP asteroids are quite low density, and IIRC those tend to airburst more than iron-nickel ones (is that correct)? So yeah, I think they would mostly not be much of a problem.

Well that's another way KSP's asteroids differ from reality. They don't break up in atmosphere, no matter what. If you have deadly re-entry mod installed, then it turns out that an asteroid on a grabber arm makes the best heat shield ever, as long as you can keep it pointed in front of you.

[Eric S]

Interestingly, neither is Earth if you take that literally.

That was my first thought as well. Earth gets hit every day by meteors, they just tend to be on the smaller end. 10m meteors are a once-a-year event on earth, and depending on their composition, usually don't survive far enough into the atmosphere to cause damage on the surface. I forget, would a 10m asteroid be a class C or D?

[Donterrio]

That's a lot of asteroids, but not only reducing asteroid spawning but to track them, it cost 1 science point!