Should The KSP Kerbol System Be Like An Analog To Our IRL Solar System, Or Should It Be More Unique?

[Nicholander]

As I was viewing through the images for the Outer Planets Mod, I noticed to large analog-like similarities to our Solar System (Well, I noticed that when I first discovered it, but you get the point), and it got me thinking: Should the KSP Kerbol System be like an analog to our IRL Solar System, or should it be more unique?

Let's compare those 2 arguments:

Analog:

The planetary bodies are pretty similar to our own, Moho = Mercury, Eve = Venus, Kerbin = Earth, Duna = Mars, Dres = Ceres, Jool = Jupiter, Eeloo = Pluto. So why shouldn't it be more close to ours? Why not have the Outer Planets Mod incorporated into stock?

Unique:

There are some obvious differences between the Kerbol System and Our IRL one, it being 10x smaller, Kerbin having a 2nd moon, Eve having a moon, Duna having one relatively large moon instead of 2 small ones, etc. And also Jool being green, Laythe being completely unlike the other Galilean moons, and the list goes on an on. So, there's no reason to add some uniqueness to the Kerbol System, maybe the other planets should be like what NovaSilisko envisioned.

So, discuss! (And vote in the poll)

[Bill Phil]

More like 1000x smaller....

I mean, 10 cubed is 1000, right?

I would like a middle of the road approach, like the current one. The planets are similar in some ways but different in others ( Jool being green, Eve being purple, Kerbals in the first place, etc).

Green is my favorite color.

[Tank Buddy]

I would like a middle of the road approach, like the current one. The planets are similar in some ways but different in others ( Jool being green, Eve being purple, Kerbals in the first place, etc).

I agree. It makes KSP a little more relatable because it is similar to our own solar system, but KSP should by no means be limited to following the template of the IRL solar system.

[regex]

Well, since it's already been ruined through virtue of being entirely impossible, I say unique but relatable.

[Jodo42]

Well, since it's already been ruined through virtue of being entirely impossible, I say unique but relatable.

That might be an interesting idea for a mod, a reworked, stable Kerbol system. Although the only "big" impossibility I can think of at the moment is the Jool system being rather unstable. Are you referring to other things as well?

[regex]

That might be an interesting idea for a mod, a reworked, stable Kerbol system. Although the only "big" impossibility I can think of at the moment is the Jool system being rather unstable. Are you referring to other things as well?

The planets are impossibly dense.

[Bill Phil]

The planets are impossibly dense.

Well, so are some people I know...

Anyways, it's not like that's important. The game could have some weird forces acting on things that only effect huge objects, like a planet. It's obviously not our universe.

[AndrewBCrisp]

It's worth noting that our solar system is looking more and more atypical as we study more planetary systems. Leaving aside the much smaller and denser bodies, I think it's a useful reminder for casual players as well as die-hard space fans that solar systems come in various forms apart from what we think of as "normal".

So I vote for a mix of analog and unique... which describes the current Kerbol system quite nicely. I'd like to see more planets, but I won't insist on them being similar to existing solar system bodies.

[Random Tank]

Well, so are some people I know...

Ow, harsh words there...

It's worth noting that our solar system is looking more and more atypical as we study more planetary systems.

Atypical? Compared to what??? We haven't observed any other system in full, only bits and bobs and the occasional planet... You can't say ours is atypical when Alpha Centauri could have 70 planets orbiting it, each one smaller than the Moon but with an atmo thicker than Earth's.... we simply don't know, and hence have nothing to compare ours to.

For KSP, I'd rather see a lot of optimization and bug-fixing before adding ANY more planets.... Mods can add planets, just look at Kopernicus Core; but mods can't fix 64 bit, which would allow us to add pretty much as many extra planets/star systems as we want.

KSP does share similarities with our System, but also plenty of differences too... (all with a big "that we know of" behind it)

Venus has no moons, Eve has 1. Earth has 1 moon, Kerbin has 2. Mars has 2 moons, Duna has 1. Ceres has millions of roids and other dwarf planets/large roids sharing its orbit, Dres doesn't. Jupiter has 4 large moons, and thousands of moonlets; Jool has 3 large, 2 small... I think it should stay similar but different, I like it that way

[timsfitz]

Although I think the solar system has a nice balance of unique and analagous planets and moons , it lacks the variety, vastness, and sheer number of orbiting bodies of our solar system. It's far less than ten times smaller as the gas and ice giants of our system have well over a hundred moons. Jool's five , although nice, are to few IMO, and the lack of rings, comets, asteroid fields, make the Kerbol system seem rather bland to me. I under the limitations of the engine and our home computers, but I still hold out hope for a great many more destinations and things to see and study, even if they are fantastical and unrealistic.

[AbacusWizard]

I'm in favor of some of both. It's nice to have some level of similarity, both for player familiarity and so that when I tell my real-life friends that I just landed an outpost on Duna I can add "...it's like Mars"... but at the same time, it's great to have unusual things to explore. Also, the fact that Kerbal has two moons gives a lot more early-game variety, and provides a great way to practice transfer orbits... and I find Minmus a lot more fun to land on than Mun anyway.

[Bill Phil]

Jupiter has 4 major moons. The rest, are, almost completely, unimportant.

[problemecium]

The Kerbolar system is totally possible!

It's just darned improbable. You'd have to have a collection of bizarre forms of matter like degenerate matter (white dwarf stuff), "neutronium", etc. having been distributed through mysterious means into a number of small planetoids, which happened to end up in stable near-circular orbits around a very old white dwarf that has turned yellow due to cooling (or some similar object). But enough of that, I'm sure there's already a thread... ^^;

I say keep it unique. A few "believability" tweaks are okay, like clouds, but I like Eve having a transparent atmosphere for example.

[Sneaky Bstard Sword]

Atypical? Compared to what??? We haven't observed any other system in full, only bits and bobs and the occasional planet... You can't say ours is atypical when Alpha Centauri could have 70 planets orbiting it, each one smaller than the Moon but with an atmo thicker than Earth's.... we simply don't know, and hence have nothing to compare ours to.

We can still observe other stars (such as alpha centauri) via methods such as spectrography and measuring the dimming of the star as it's planets eclipse it, so we do know a surprising amount about other solar systems.

[AbacusWizard]

Jupiter has 4 major moons. The rest, are, almost completely, unimportant.

Until we find a monolith on one of them.

[alphamone]

A couple of tiny (that make gilly landings look like Mun landings in comparison) moons around Jool or other possible future planets might be nice. An inclined comet or two might be nice to have for higher level challenges.

[FlyingPete]

I think there's enough in the current Kerbol system that we can compare to in our Solar system- the third planet is small and rocky, has a large moon and is inhabited by intelligent(?) life. The fourth is smaller and red in colour, the fifth is a gas giant with several moons etc. But then, Earth isn't inhabited by cartoonish little green men, there's no ocean moon around our largest gas giant, and no second Terran moon that's apparently made of mint ice cream etc. So it's quite clearly not analogous to the Solar system, but with several similarities. How it should be IMO.

[SlyReaper]

It's worth noting that our solar system is looking more and more atypical as we study more planetary systems.

I don't think that's true, it's just that with the technology we have at our disposal, we can only detect certain types of solar system. Ones where the planets orbit really close to their sun to provide strong enough signals in the star's wobble and light dips for our instruments to detect, and for these signals to appear frequently enough that it doesn't take years to verify. There's a reason the first exoplanets we found were gas giants in very tight orbits around their stars. It's worth noting that if our telescopes were at Alpha Centauri instead of here, they would not be able to detect the Earth.

[AndrewBCrisp]

I'll grant you our picture of these other systems - approx. 1,180 as of this month - is not complete. But, thanks largely to the Kepler mission, we're finding more Earth-sized planets than in previous searches, and we're finding more planets further from their suns. I think we have enough of a sample size to state that our solar system's mix of planets - terrestrials close in, Jovians/subjovians further out - is not the norm.

[SlyReaper]

I'll grant you our picture of these other systems - approx. 1,180 as of this month - is not complete. But, thanks largely to the Kepler mission, we're finding more Earth-sized planets than in previous searches, and we're finding more planets further from their suns. I think we have enough of a sample size to state that our solar system's mix of planets - terrestrials close in, Jovians/subjovians further out - is not the norm.

I still strongly disagree. The earth-sized planets we've found are around very small, mostly red dwarf type stars. This has to be the case because an earth-sized planet orbiting 1AU from a sun-like star is simply not detectable by our instruments at this time. The number of star systems we've detected is irrelevant, because that sample is heavily biased by our detection methods. We simply don't have the capability yet to see solar systems similar to our own.

[Nicholander]

Wow, I didn't expect to have this many voters! Anyway, I voted for somewhat unique (Think of it like 75% unique, 25% analogue), because of, to summarize what's been said a zillion times, the impossibilities in the Kerbol System and the ovbious differences, but there's some similarities.

[CaptRobau]

My approach when developing the Outer Planets Mod has been to go for recognizable, realistic where it counts and unique. Half the fun of KSP for me is reading about missions or concepts from real-life and trying to recreate them. But I didn't want to copy RL exactly, so a lot of my moons have been amalgamations of various real-life moons and if they're not, they're based on concepts that could realistically be possible. This opinion is the same for the stock game (which has had a similar approach so far).

[Robotengineer]

I voted a mix of both. Most of the planets are analogous to our planets, but the moons are what make the systems unique. There are no Minmus or Laythe type planets/moons in our solar sytem.

[RainDreamer]

I prefer it to be more unique. Because it means more opportunity for more fantastical planetary formations, and more places to visit!

[Achernar]

The current system is nice and fun. Perhaps the developer's could focus on the milky way and everything we know for the next generation of KSP. The knowledge gained from developing the first generation should make for an excellent second.

How fun would it be if KSP2 was a model of our universe with an 'easter-egg-wormhole' that threw us into the Kerbal universe we know so well.