The Kerbol System: Fact or Fiction?

[CalMacDa]

Okay, maybe the name is a little misleading, but this thread is to discuss what is seriously unrealistic or realistic about the Kerbol system. There are plenty of things, so have fun picking apart everything wrong with Kerbol and its planets. Thanks!

Vote in the poll!

Edited January 19, 2015 by CalMacDa

[Superfluous J]

I voted "Fiction." The system simply cannot happen. The Sun is way too small to ignite. Kerbin is too dense to even exist in our universe IIRC. No atmosphere works like any of the atmospheres we've ever encountered. All planets' poles are aligned perfectly with the sun's "north" which is also galactic "north" (well, I suppose it could be galactic south) yet they have inclined orbits. Some worlds have 0 eccentricity.

There is more but I'd have to start doing research. Those were just off the top of my head

[KerBlam]

I also said fiction, because that's what it is... Having said that however, it is my favourite fictional solar system ever.

[CalMacDa]

What bothers me is the how baron the system is. There are a few small asteroids hanging out around Kerbin, but otherwise, its desolate

[r4pt0r]

Its somewhat realistic, the somewhat part being that the scales are off from the "real world", and the engine limitations that prohibit axial tilt. also it lacks comets still but i digress.

[DevoidLight]

I feel like it's scaled down only for gameplay purposes, and if you considered a Kerbol system with 'accurate' sizes and densities it would be pretty realistic.

[Tw1]

Clearly fiction, only for the unrealistic sizes of everything. But that's ok in my book, I like to rove.

[AbacusWizard]

Realistic enough to learn a lot about physics; unrealistic enough to be playable and fun. (I've tried the Real Solar System mods. I don't think I even got into orbit.)

[Mad_Maelstrom]

None of the planets or moons have different rotational tilts. In the stock game there are no clouds, weather, or wind.

[Itsdavyjones]

What bothers me is the how baron the system is. There are a few small asteroids hanging out around Kerbin, but otherwise, its desolate

Thats still fairly accurate, in terms of a few asteroids, IF we only include NKO's, there are still many more otherwise. Custom asteroids does that, but still limited in what does spawn due to system limits. (currently bugs out to spawn thousands of roids, making any system grind to a crawl)

Also, space is mostly, you guessed it, empty space. Take a look at this, if you got a 20-30 minutes to burn just scrolling.

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

[Heartstrings]

Realism is quantitative, as opposed to qualitative. What is realistic is always realistic. KSP's system is decidedly non-realistic.

[Superfluous J]

What bothers me is the how baron the system is. There are a few small asteroids hanging out around Kerbin, but otherwise, its desolate

Did someone say Baron?

Clearly fiction, only for the unrealistic sizes of everything. But that's ok in my book, I like to rove.

Totally agree, I *like* (most of) the stuff that's not realistic. For the most part it makes the game better.

Realism is quantitative, as opposed to qualitative. What is realistic is always realistic. KSP's system is decidedly non-realistic.

Right, but a set of things can be various shades of realistic. You can say that Gravity is more realistic than Star Wars even though both are not realistic, and there is worth in noting where they fall along a spectrum.

[Mad_Maelstrom]

I would love it if eclipes actually cast shadows on other bodies.

[Bill Phil]

It's fiction, because it's made up.

[Hannu]

It is fiction. It have very coarse approximation of newtonian physics and so balanced technical performance, that you have to think little bit of dv on interplanetary trips with massive crafts, but all other physics, material parameters, biological things etc. are as fictive as in Pacman's world.

[KSK]

Realistic enough to learn a lot about physics; unrealistic enough to be playable and fun.

This.

What bothers me is the how baron the system is. There are a few small asteroids hanging out around Kerbin, but otherwise, its desolate

That's cool. It makes a nice blank canvas for players to project their own imaginings on.

[cicatrix]

It can't happen IRL but who cares? It's a wonderful cozy system we all love.

[prophet_01]

I voted somewhat realistic.

It's pretty good considering that it's (as far as I know).scale and scope. I haven't seen another simulation that is able to cover such a huge "space" with that level of detail. Especially with mods like realism overhaul it gets rly close imo, and it still runs on ok on rather crappy computers (my laptop ). Realsim depends on what you want to compare it to. For a game it's pretty good, for a simulator (which it actually isn't) it's still somewhat ok. Compared to real life... it's enough to show concepts, but not more

That said, a list of stuff that makes me laugh:

the stock atmo is a joke, a funny one at times, but still not even close to RL. Mass and drag? Well...

The planets are RLY dense and way too close to each other. I doubt that they could remain on such close distances from each other (and still remain such a minimal eccentricity).

Most moons are way too close to theire parental celestials. The tidal forces on kerbin won't be pretty... I would expect zhe mother of earthquakes to destroy KSC every couple of hours

Dunas atmosphere appears to be way too dense, it would need to constantly evaporate gases in order to keep that density. That is at least not mars-like

The sudden border between absolute vacuum and atmosphere seems well.... odd?

The sun is pretty much impossible as it is.

You can't leave kerbols soi as far as I know.

There are no big-ish asteroids. Compared to RL even an E-class asteroid is rather small. And nobody knows where all those NearKerbinObjects come from. My guess would be rainbow's end...

All planets and moons have perfectly even gravity wells. Real world ones don't. Even geostationary satelites tend to move toward more stable positions and NASA had quite some issues with unstable orbits around the moon

enough picking from my side. KSP is still cool and the fact that I actually notice those things, shows how much I've already learned about all of this

watching Star Wars is never the same after playing KSP...

Edited January 19, 2015 by prophet_01

[1101]

I put unrealistic due to the scale/planet mass issues. That said, It could be in a universe where G is larger, to my knowledge that would give the higher gravities needed for the planet sizes. Admittedly I'm not a physicist, and this opinion is mainly from my having read Raft by Stephen Baxter (wherein the protagonists are in a Universe where G is so high people have noticeable gravity on each other).

Of course, I realise that in such a world the smaller size of a star would likely prevent the evolution of intelligent life unless it's a dwarf...

[InterCity]

I voted "Fiction." The system simply cannot happen. The Sun is way too small to ignite. Kerbin is too dense to even exist in our universe IIRC. No atmosphere works like any of the atmospheres we've ever encountered. All planets' poles are aligned perfectly with the sun's "north" which is also galactic "north" (well, I suppose it could be galactic south) yet they have inclined orbits. Some worlds have 0 eccentricity.

There is more but I'd have to start doing research. Those were just off the top of my head

I've chosen "somewhat true", because while all above is valid, there is also a truckload of similarities, namely gravity and orbital mechanics...

[cantab]

Well the dwarf elephant in the room is the scale. Impossibly dense celestials, an unphysical Sun, and probably a too-small gas planet.

But beyond that, I don't think we can really know. Yes Minmus seems a mystery, yes Eve and Jool's vivid colours seem unlikely, but then we have such a small sample IRL. Beyond our solar system we know little more than masses, sizes, and orbits. Maybe there are shocking purple terrestrial planets.

As for the atmospheric behaviour, the lack of n-body mechanics, and so on, I'd call them game limitations. The question is how realistic is the Kerbol system, not how realistic is KSP.

[BagelRabbit]

I would say that of all the "solar systems" depicted in video games, this one is almost certainly the most realistic. I voted "Somewhat Realistic" because it's quite good... for a game.

Then again, I haven't played many games which depict solar systems. The game that I play most frequently besides this one is still Spore, and the gameplay mechanics on that one are simply atrocious. Forgivable, but atrocious nonetheless.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Fiction!

AND

I don't care!

I’d been meaning to start a post, It’s an absolutely adorable kid-sized solar system!

From the moons of Jool, you can see each and every one of the other moons of Jool. (can’t happen but is sooo cute!) and as has already been mentioned, the sun is too small, densities are all to high, orbits and alignments are all too perfect.

But none of that matters!

Because it is by far both the funnest, and (separately) the most educational game I ever played!

EDIT: and of course a real solar system would both (A) crash your computer worse than KSP does now, and ( be no fun at all as we would all just be unable to solve all the exact same problems NASA, and Elon Musk, are currently unable to solve.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[cantab]

Well, plenty of people find 6.4x or Real Solar System fun. The chief gameplay difference with a larger system is longer launches to orbit. Larger rockets too but that can be balanced out by changing engine and tank performance.

[Tex]

I voted Realistic.

I believe that things are represented fairly realistically, and while I do acknowledge the fact that the aerodynamics and gravity between the celestial bodies may be a bit less than realistic, I have no trouble conceptualizing a solar system that could have planets like the Kerbol system does.