https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Severedsolo&feedformat=atomKerbal Space Program Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T09:07:04ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.29.0https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=Planned_features&diff=92698Planned features2018-11-25T17:38:25Z<p>Severedsolo: Remove features that were added with no confirmation from Squad (4k support & better particles) - this is not a wishlist.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Outdated|<br />
* Should be replaced with confirmed features for the next version only.}}<br />
{{Box|2=The entries on the following list '''must be properly cited''' to ensure verifiability.}}<br />
<br />
The features listed here are planned for future versions of Kerbal Space Program and may change during the course of development.<br />
<br />
'''This list is not an official road-map for KSP.''' It is maintained by the community, and has no direct relation to what may or may not be included in the final product. Already implemented features can be found in the [[version history]].<br />
<br />
== Future features ==<br />
{| class="wikitable float-right"<br />
|-<br />
| Current version: {{Check version/Cur}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
This section lists all planned features for future releases. Entries highlighted in <span style = "background:#42C0FB">blue</span> are planned for the next update. Entries in <span style = "background:#FFEE44">yellow</span> have been partially implemented. Entries in <span style = "background:#00FF00">green</span> are already in development but are not expected for the next update or are so huge that there are multiple updates incrementally adding that feature. <span style = "background:#FF5500; color:#FFFFFF">Orange</span> is for the questionable features - had pros and cons, or simply unconfirmed.<br />
<br />
The entries on the list are not a commitment, and the developer team is not under any obligation to implement them all. These features may be pushed back or implemented on another way then suggested here, or cancelled altogether.<br />
<br />
The next major version is expected to be 1.6<br />
<br />
=== Construction ===<br />
* <span style = "background:#00FF00">Rocket Parts Overhaul</span> (On hold, available for download)<ref name="Max-Bug">[http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/136707686644/ Devnote Tuesdays] on January 5<sup>th</sup>, 2016</ref> <ref>http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/147582-update-12-pre-release-is-here/</ref><br />
<br />
== Planned/Mentioned Features ==<br />
The features listed here are planned or were mentioned to be implemented. Some of them have outdated references and may not represent the current plan.<br />
<br />
=== Scenery & graphics ===<br />
* <span style = "background:#FFEE44">Procedurally generated craters (Mun in 0.21)</span><ref>[[blog:667|Procedural Craters]] dev blog post by "HarvesteR"</ref><br />
<br />
=== Flight operations ===<br />
* <span style = "background:#FFEE44">Enhanced [[IVA]]s</span>: Moving and <span style = "background:#FFEE44">interacting</span> inside of the craft<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja8jxl Answer] from Maxmaps in his AMA</ref><br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FFEE44">Autopilot system for flying planes or rockets</span> (Partially achieved by 0.90.0, now a "Pilot" Kerbal can orient a craft to certain points, e.g. Prograde){{cn}}<br />
<br />
=== Celestial bodies ===<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5500; color:#FFFFFF">Maxmaps has gone on record with claiming new planets are, "a big maybe."</span><ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7sep Answer] from Maxmaps in his AMA</ref><br />
<br />
=== Game & engine ===<br />
* Multiplayer<ref>[https://www.facebook.com/kerbalspaceprogram/posts/978528622166362?comment_id=978554832163741&reply_comment_id=978557518830139&total_comments=12&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D Answer on Facebook] on April 28<sup>th</sup>, 2015</ref><ref>[http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/125870848429/ Devnote Tuesdays] on August 4<sup>th</sup>, 2015</ref><br />
** Squad is committed to add multiplayer to the finished game after the success of the user created mod KMP, or Kerbal MultiPlayer. Squad says “Multiplayer is something we had planned to do after it was all said and done, but it’s time for us to start looking at it now”.<ref>[http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/12/kerbal-space-program-committed-to-multiplayer-career-and-sandbox-modes/ PC Gamer] On December 12<sup>th</sup>, 2013</ref> With 0.24 Squad specifically states that they working on the first steps to add multiplayer after career is finished.<ref>“[[article:250|The 0.24 Update Goals Post!]]” by HarvesteR released on February 4<sup>th</sup>, 2014</ref> KMP is a multiplayer mod system for Kerbal Space Program that ended development as of 0.23.5.<ref>[http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55835 Kerbal MultiPlayer (Alpha)]</ref> Its successor project, Dark Multi Player (or [http://d-mp.org DMP]), has continued development of this multiplayer mod up to 1.3.1. <br />
** The DMP dev has suggested that ports for future versions of KSP will continue up until Squad releases a version of KSP with built in functional Multiplayer of its own. <ref name="DarkMultiPlayer Forum">[http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/71656-darkmultiplayer-0223-ksp-105-alpha/ DarkMultiPlayer Forum]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Other game features ===<br />
* Life-support systems (presently not confirmed, but has been considered for future inclusion)<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cjaatbg Answer] from Maxmaps in his AMA</ref><br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5500; color:#FFFFFF">Resources beyond present scope</span> (Fuel, Oxygen, Electricity, etc.)<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7615 Answer] from Maxmaps in his AMA</ref><br />
<br />
=== Modding ===<br />
* <span style = "background:#FFEE44">A more complete [[SDK]] and documentation (you can help by adding to the wiki!)</span>{{cn}}<br />
<br />
== Not planned or shelved ==<br />
The following features have either been confirmed or suggested to not be in the official game, or have otherwise been paused or shelved due to scope changes or other considerations. A few, such as autopilot systems, weapons, and realistically-sized celestial bodies are already available via mods.<!-- put here, what unambiguously will not be implemented! --><br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Steam achievements</span><ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cjaarta Answer] from Maxmaps in his AMA</ref><br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Competitor/rival space agencies</span><ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja8z0q Answer] from Maxmaps in his AMA</ref><br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Realistically sized celestial bodies </span><ref>[http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/b/433446141?t=57m43s Q&A during 0.21 early access livestream with Yargnit and Ted]</ref><br />
<br />
[[File:New eva.jpg|thumb|The new EVA suit]]<br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">New [[EVA]] suits</span> (New high-poly model will be used only for cinematics)<ref>[http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/93338999759/ Devnote Tuesdays] on the dev blog</ref><ref>[http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90612 Forum post by KasperVLD]</ref><br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Weapons or military features</span>{{cn}}<br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Autopilot systems</span>{{cn}} (partially achieved by 0.90.0)<br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Alien civilizations</span>{{cn}}<br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Terraforming</span>{{cn}}<br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Conversion to a different game engine.</span>{{cn}} <br />
<br />
* <span style = "background:#FF5555; color:#FFFFFF">Mobile version.</span>{{cn}}<br />
<br />
== Web Services ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Feature !! Status<br />
|-<br />
| Mac Fixes<br />
* .app packaging (Finder-compatible)<br />
* Clipboard support<br />
| In progress<br />
|-<br />
| Auto-resume interrupted downloads<br />
| In progress<br />
|-<br />
| Downloads through BitTorrent (long-term)<br />
| Planning<br />
|-<br />
| Load-balanced Repair Packages<br />
| Feasibility Analysis<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
{{Versions}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Documentation]]</div>Severedsolohttps://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kerbin&diff=51356Talk:Kerbin2014-10-18T10:30:44Z<p>Severedsolo: KSC Biomes</p>
<hr />
<div>== In-Game Descriptions==<br />
<br />
Should we really be correcting Squad's grammar? If we do then they aren't quotes anymore. None of the descriptions contain apostrophes even on words like "dont" so I don't mind adding them in but otherwise I strongly advocate against correcting grammar. The quotes should be quotes. Now since I only have one computer and the game won't function for me unless it is in full screen, I couldn't view both the in-game description and my transcription of it at the same time so I may have made some copping errors (though I did form a check on each) and these should be corrected. I don't mind going back cheeking and correcting the quotes though I won't be able to until later (probably in a few days) but I thought I would discuss my reasoning here first before I do. I don't want to get into an update war. - benschwab 17:36, 29 March 2014 UTC<br />
<br />
Hi Ben! No, I agree with you; literal quotes must be literal. I could have made that clearer in my edit summaries. I meant I was correcting to ''match'' Squad's bad grammar. No war. But I have two computers and checked all the descriptions to be exactly as Squad has them in-game – Dres is particularly ungrammatical...<br />
--[[User:Brendan|Brendan]] ([[User talk:Brendan|talk]]) 19:50, 29 March 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Kay. Thank you. I must of have been auto editing while switching between windows and mis-read what you were doing. I appreciate you correcting my mistakes. - benschwab 5:02, 30 March 2014 UTC<br />
<br />
== Infobox ==<br />
<br />
I've attempted to make an infobox template for planets, [[:Template:Planetbox]], to bring it closer in line to the stock parts here and planets on wikipedia. Any advice would be welcome. {{unsigned|Craigmt}}<br />
* So far, so good. I think you have more columns than you originally anticipated, though, so many of the cellss are floating around. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
* Yeah, the length of the template is breaking some formatting stuff on articles it's transcluded in. It looks good, but I'd personally trim it down to mass/diameter/etc. and leave orbital information in the article proper. --{{User:Trinexx/sig2}} 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So, leave orbital characteristics in the article itself and keep physical characteristics in the box? {{unsigned|Craigmt}}<br />
* That's my personal recommendation, at least. I imagine other people have their own opinions on the matter. --{{User:Trinexx/sig2}} 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
All the links used in the references are broken. Just an FYI. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== 'Kermunist' ==<br />
<br />
Should this term really be used? [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
: There are no factions in the game, so it would be better to not have that in there, as it'd cause confusion. We do need a Manual of Style to cover stuff like this. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Atmosphere ==<br />
<br />
I edited the atmosphere section to make clear the units of d_k & p_k after working through gamedata.<br />
Still unsure what units p_k are in<br />
FlightGlobals.getStaticPressure() values are in atm,<br />
with 1 atm = 101325 Pa to get an absolute static pressure value needed for ideal gas law<br />
-Kellven<br />
<br />
<br />
Should it be mentioned that because Kerbin has plant and animal life, that therefore the atmosphere is similair to our own? That would be a bit quick on the draw given that even our atmosphere is extremly hostile to some earthbound organisms.<br />
--[[User:Azivegu|Azivegu]] ([[User talk:Azivegu|talk]]) 08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Orbital information ==<br />
<br />
it mentions in the infobox that Kerbin has a o ecc and 0 inc orbit.. i don't think thats correct, can someone plug the correct figures in?<br />
: Maltesh's rip of the 0.18.2 orbital parameters has those, and a quick check in map view shows Kerbin's altitude and speed not changing anywhere in the orbit, so it should still be correct. [[User:UmbralRaptor|UmbralRaptor]] ([[User talk:UmbralRaptor|talk]]) 06:48, 1 February 2013 (CST)<br />
:: I'm not sure it's the best place for this information, but I linked to the planetary data spreadsheet and text files at [[Celestials#Notes]]. &mdash; [[User:Elembis|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis|talk]]) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (CST)<br />
Well, that will teach me to open my big mouth before checking my facts. I guess the inclination of the other bodies is measured relative to Kerbin. Oops. [[User:Kahlzun|Kahlzun]] ([[User talk:Kahlzun|talk]]) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sidereal day length changed ==<br />
With the release of 0.24 the solar day is now exactly 6 hours long. Is my understanding correct? What would make the sidereal day then? Is there an objection to updating the page to reflect this new information? [[User:Benschwab|Benschwab]] ([[User talk:Benschwab|talk]]) 20:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm not sure if that hadn't already changed before. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 17:14, 25 July 2014 (CDT)<br />
:Okay thanks to [[User:UmbralRaptor]] on the IRC I was able to make calculations. He placed a command pod on top of the launch pad at a altitude of 72&nbsp;m in 0.19, 0.23.5 and 0.24.2 and always gets a orbital velocity of 174.6&nbsp;m/s.<br />
:The orbital velocity while standing on the surface is basically the rotational speed at that altitude. Now using <math>v = \frac{s}{t}</math> we can calculate the time required to do a full circle with a radius of 600&#8239;072&nbsp;m: <math>t = \frac{2 \cdot \pi \cdot r}{v}</math> = [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600072m*2*pi%2F%28174.6+m%2Fs%29%3D = 21594 seconds] (or 5h 59m 54s) which is almost 6 hours. When you do the reverse you get [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600072m*2*pi%2F%286+h%29+in+mm%2Fs%3D 174&#8239;554&nbsp;mm/s] which rounded gets you 174.6&nbsp;m/s. This makes me already pretty confident that the sidereal rotation is 6 hours and not the solar day.<br />
:Now lets give it a chance and use 6 hours as a solar day. But to calculate the rotational velocity the value needs to be converted into the sidereal rotation period, because on the way how the calculation works: When viewed from the north (or south) pole the craft on the launch pad is doing a circle and the circumference depends on the radius. To calculate a constant speed (a little physics: the velocity vector changes because the craft "curves" but the magnitude stays the same which is afaik called speed) the distance has to be divided by the time it took to cover that distance. The distance, is the circumference and the time it took that distance is the sidereal rotation period. If you use the solar day for that time you would need a larger distance (in this case, in theory the solar day can be shorter than the sidereal day) because Kerbin does rotate a bit further.<br />
:To convert that I used the formula from [[w:Sidereal_time#Sidereal_days_compared_to_solar_days_on_other_planets|Wikipedia]] and plugged in the solar day length and sidereal orbit: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6h*9203545s%2F%286h%2B9203545s%29 21459 seconds] (or 5h 59m 9s) ([http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x+%3D+y%2F%281-y%2Fc%29+solve+for+y for validity of the formula], c is the orbital period, x is the length of the solar day and y is the length of the sidereal day)<br />
:Using that we get [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600072m*2*pi%2F%286h*9203545s%2F%286h%2B9203545s%29%29+in+mm%2Fs%3D 174&#8239;964&nbsp;mm/s] which is rounded 175&nbsp;m/s. But that speed is considerably larger compared the previous result.<br />
:We also checked if the orbit has changed (which would have changed the length of a sidereal day if the solar day is fixed at 6 hours and got 13338240256m which is 261600000m lower than the value shown here in the infobox (13599840256&nbsp;m) but is exactly the radius of [[Kerbol]]. And the altitude in KSP is given from the body's surface so that checks out. But even though the orbit must have been considerably larger to get solar day and sidereal day close (and I'm currently not in the mood to determine how large the orbit must be that both length of days are close enough that solar day length would make sense).<br />
:So unless we didn't consider a specific factor I gather that the length of the sidereal day hasn't changed contrary to the changelog.<br />
:Also if you think about it, what would be the advantage. Defining times based on their sidereal values makes it easier because you don't have to take the orbit into account. I also revert the change in the infobox to a sidereal day length of exactly 6 hours. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 22:22, 4 August 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Map ==<br />
Does anyone now what projection the map is in? a link to the relevant page would be nice, i am refering to the one in the Topography section<br />
:What map do you mean? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small valign="middle">&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 02:37, 22 April 2013 (CDT)<br />
:I would guess [[w:Equirectangular projection|Equirectangular projection]] as the one degree in both axes in [[:File:Kerbin heightmap.jpg]] have always the same length. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 08:15, 18 May 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Orbits ==<br />
I crunched the numbers using a few different methods and I keep getting a discrepancy between my numbers and the listed figures (I calculate a GEO orbital velocity of ≈1109 m/s, a difference of exactly 100 m/s). Can someone confirm this? Otherwise, tell me why I'm wrong. ;) -- [[User:Eurousalas|Eurousalas]] ([[User talk:Eurousalas|talk]]) 14:51, 22 April 2013 (EST)<br />
:I can confirm both. [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+velocity&a=*C.orbital+velocity-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**CircularOrbitSpeed.vc-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.m-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.r--&f3=5.29157926281091e22+kg&x=0&y=0&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.m_5.29157926281091e22+kg&f4=2868.75+km+&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.r_2868.75+km+&a=*FVarOpt.1-_***CircularOrbitSpeed.r--.***CircularOrbitSpeed.h-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.radius---.*-- This confirm your value] while [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28G*5.29157926281091e22+kg%2F%28%2821600s%29^2*G*5.29157926281091e22+kg%2F%284*pi^2%29%29^1%2F3%29^0.5 this confirm the value of this page]. What formula do you use?<br />
::<math>v=\sqrt{\frac{G \cdot m}{\sqrt[3]{\frac{p^2 \cdot G \cdot m}{4 \cdot \pi^2}}}}</math><br />
::<small>m = orbited body mass, p = orbital period</small><br />
:— [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small valign="middle">&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 14:54, 22 April 2013 (CDT)<br />
::Thanks to a friend, I know what your mistake is: The GSO altitude is given relative to the planet's surface not gravity center. Now {{Tl|OrbitVelocity}} and [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+velocity&a=*C.orbital+velocity-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**CircularOrbitSpeed.vc-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.m-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.r--&f3=5.29157926281091e22+kg&x=0&y=0&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.m_5.29157926281091e22+kg&f4=3468.75+km+&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.r_3468.75+km+&a=*FVarOpt.1-_***CircularOrbitSpeed.r--.***CircularOrbitSpeed.h-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.radius---.*-- wolfram alpha] need this value to be from the gravity center. So you need to add 600 km to your altitude and then you get the correct value. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small valign="middle">&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 15:03, 22 April 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::Ack, I knew it would be an obvious mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, it would have bugged me for a long time. -- [[User:Eurousalas|Eurousalas]] ([[User talk:Eurousalas|talk]]) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Map ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to note that both true-colour maps are outdated. Saik0 on the KSP forums has made maps which are not outdated and in Full-HD and uploaded them on http://www.kerbalmaps.com/ . The website includes anomaly locations (optional), elevation maps, slope maps and true colour maps for all bodies in the Kerbol system except for Kerbol and Jool. He also put those maps online for download at https://mega.co.nz/#F!8EAnSL5Z!OAyLBQqrQtlmfL0GT8fcQg!EBYyXRxA . I have not uploaded any of these images myself yet, because e.g. the Duna true-colour map is something like 77.5 MB where 2 MB are allowed and I'm unable to compress them. I came here to ask if someone would be interested in compressing these for the community. Oh also, here have his KSP forums thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25148-Web-maps-of-all-bodies-(0-4-ALL-bodies-mapped!)?p=307335#post307335<br />
[[User:MmPMSFmM|MmPMSFmM]] ([[User talk:MmPMSFmM|talk]]) 07:42, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
:I'm wondering where the Kerbin map is on your download link? Here are my suggestions to compress them:<br />
:* Use a compression format like png/jpg<br />
:* Reduce the resolution of the image (may not be needed when compressing with jpg)<br />
:— [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 08:36, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
::I just found out why you can't find the Kerbin files on that MEGA site: on the forums the author says that "it is his first map and only has half the resolution of the others" and that he will upload it once he redoes it. Also I'm having problems with that MEGA site and Firefox, can't download the files, because of some message about accepting another message that doesn't appear for me... --[[User:Dgelessus|dgelessus]] <sup>([[User talk:Dgelessus|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Dgelessus|contribs]])</sup> 09:23, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::I'm able to download the images. I tested Gilly but when I tried to edit ''gilly_0.19.1_0.02197265625_-180_90_180_-90_16384x8192.elevation.tif'' (which I guess is the most important type of map?) I can't open or edit it because: ''convert: Sorry, can not handle images with 32-bit samples.''. Maybe I find a way to fix this and I'll upload some files. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 19:10, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Making Geosynchronous Orbit More Exact? ==<br />
<br />
I see the formula for the calculation of geosynchronous orbit, but that only gives the orbit within the tens of metres. Through some calculations I've found that the closest I can get is '''2868750.72505''' metres. Would we be willing to change it?<br />
<br />
:Considering that it is practically impossible to get the orbit that exact, I don't think it's necessary. 2868.75km is more than close enough.--[[User:Ruedii|Ruedii]] ([[User talk:Ruedii|talk]]) 19:13, 23 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Elevation update ==<br />
With topology changes in 0.21, the highest known elevation will have likely changed. My current efforts with a 52 million sample file from ISA Mapsat show a new highest elevation of 6765.1 at location +61.6,+46.34, but I want to confirm that with a landing before updating the page and also wasn't sure if I had missed any higher points.--[[User:Khyron|Khyron]] ([[User talk:Khyron|talk]]) 02:12, 28 July 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Surface gravity ==<br />
I suggest adding a percentage value to the surface gravity inside the info boxes of the planets. This percentage value, denotes a comparison to Kerbin. So the 9,81m/s² acceleration of is 100%, and the value of other planet is an according value. Another way of denoting this value, would be to set Kerbin's s as 1 and then use that to compare the gravitational acceleration of other planet. [[User:Polemon|Polemon]] ([[User talk:Polemon|talk]]) 14:39, 11 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
:You are talking about using “g-force”: 1 ''g'' = 9.81 m/s². This is in theory possible, but I'm not quite sure if this is really helpful. The template is already enormous and [[Kerbol System/Table]] for example show them for you. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 15:06, 11 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
::Why useful: When designing crafts that are supposed to land on other celestial bodies, I like to test them on Kerbin beforehand. Doing this kind of calculation is "OK-ish", but I don't see why it shouldn't be in the infobox as well. [[User:Polemon|Polemon]] ([[User talk:Polemon|talk]]) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::btw, I fixed your comment - looks like you accidentally overwrote xZise's message. --[[User:Dgelessus|dgelessus]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Dgelessus|talk]]&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Dgelessus|contribs]])</sup> 15:21, 13 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::Okay as there is already enough space, I added it. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 05:04, 15 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== G factor ==<br />
Does ''g'' = 9.8'''2''' m/s² ? [[Specific_impulse#Conversion_factor]] discusses back-calculating ''g'', and arrives at a value closer to 9.82. Any thoughts on breaking this out in to its own page, or at least "correcting" it here?--[[User:BlobKerman|BlobKerman]] ([[User talk:BlobKerman|talk]]) 07:50, 26 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
:The gravitational acceleration at the surface shown in the infobox is calculated, based on the mass and radius of Kerbin and using {{Tl|Body data/Gravity}}. So I wouldn't redefine g to 9.82 m/s². The conversion factor is arbitrarily chosen and "coincidentally" the same as the average surface gravity for real-world rockets. You could use 1 m/s² and in the US they would then choose something like 3.3 ft/s² and would get the same results. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 13:08, 26 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
::At least when I last checked, g for Isp and g for Kerbin's surface did not match up. Hence 9.82 for engine efficiency, but 9.81 for weight. [[User:UmbralRaptor|UmbralRaptor]] ([[User talk:UmbralRaptor|talk]]) 14:31, 26 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== KSC Biomes. ==<br />
<br />
I've updated the KSC Biome section, I believed there were 11, but reports on the forums are showing that there could be as many as 30? Can anyone verify this? I'll try and take another look later and do a bit more exploration, but I only found 11 on the ground with EVA - Science Alert going off every time I stepped into a new biome.</div>Severedsolohttps://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kerbin&diff=51355Talk:Kerbin2014-10-18T10:30:16Z<p>Severedsolo: /* No change - just asking the question. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>== In-Game Descriptions==<br />
<br />
Should we really be correcting Squad's grammar? If we do then they aren't quotes anymore. None of the descriptions contain apostrophes even on words like "dont" so I don't mind adding them in but otherwise I strongly advocate against correcting grammar. The quotes should be quotes. Now since I only have one computer and the game won't function for me unless it is in full screen, I couldn't view both the in-game description and my transcription of it at the same time so I may have made some copping errors (though I did form a check on each) and these should be corrected. I don't mind going back cheeking and correcting the quotes though I won't be able to until later (probably in a few days) but I thought I would discuss my reasoning here first before I do. I don't want to get into an update war. - benschwab 17:36, 29 March 2014 UTC<br />
<br />
Hi Ben! No, I agree with you; literal quotes must be literal. I could have made that clearer in my edit summaries. I meant I was correcting to ''match'' Squad's bad grammar. No war. But I have two computers and checked all the descriptions to be exactly as Squad has them in-game – Dres is particularly ungrammatical...<br />
--[[User:Brendan|Brendan]] ([[User talk:Brendan|talk]]) 19:50, 29 March 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Kay. Thank you. I must of have been auto editing while switching between windows and mis-read what you were doing. I appreciate you correcting my mistakes. - benschwab 5:02, 30 March 2014 UTC<br />
<br />
== Infobox ==<br />
<br />
I've attempted to make an infobox template for planets, [[:Template:Planetbox]], to bring it closer in line to the stock parts here and planets on wikipedia. Any advice would be welcome. {{unsigned|Craigmt}}<br />
* So far, so good. I think you have more columns than you originally anticipated, though, so many of the cellss are floating around. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
* Yeah, the length of the template is breaking some formatting stuff on articles it's transcluded in. It looks good, but I'd personally trim it down to mass/diameter/etc. and leave orbital information in the article proper. --{{User:Trinexx/sig2}} 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So, leave orbital characteristics in the article itself and keep physical characteristics in the box? {{unsigned|Craigmt}}<br />
* That's my personal recommendation, at least. I imagine other people have their own opinions on the matter. --{{User:Trinexx/sig2}} 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
All the links used in the references are broken. Just an FYI. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== 'Kermunist' ==<br />
<br />
Should this term really be used? [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
: There are no factions in the game, so it would be better to not have that in there, as it'd cause confusion. We do need a Manual of Style to cover stuff like this. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Atmosphere ==<br />
<br />
I edited the atmosphere section to make clear the units of d_k & p_k after working through gamedata.<br />
Still unsure what units p_k are in<br />
FlightGlobals.getStaticPressure() values are in atm,<br />
with 1 atm = 101325 Pa to get an absolute static pressure value needed for ideal gas law<br />
-Kellven<br />
<br />
<br />
Should it be mentioned that because Kerbin has plant and animal life, that therefore the atmosphere is similair to our own? That would be a bit quick on the draw given that even our atmosphere is extremly hostile to some earthbound organisms.<br />
--[[User:Azivegu|Azivegu]] ([[User talk:Azivegu|talk]]) 08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Orbital information ==<br />
<br />
it mentions in the infobox that Kerbin has a o ecc and 0 inc orbit.. i don't think thats correct, can someone plug the correct figures in?<br />
: Maltesh's rip of the 0.18.2 orbital parameters has those, and a quick check in map view shows Kerbin's altitude and speed not changing anywhere in the orbit, so it should still be correct. [[User:UmbralRaptor|UmbralRaptor]] ([[User talk:UmbralRaptor|talk]]) 06:48, 1 February 2013 (CST)<br />
:: I'm not sure it's the best place for this information, but I linked to the planetary data spreadsheet and text files at [[Celestials#Notes]]. &mdash; [[User:Elembis|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis|talk]]) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (CST)<br />
Well, that will teach me to open my big mouth before checking my facts. I guess the inclination of the other bodies is measured relative to Kerbin. Oops. [[User:Kahlzun|Kahlzun]] ([[User talk:Kahlzun|talk]]) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sidereal day length changed ==<br />
With the release of 0.24 the solar day is now exactly 6 hours long. Is my understanding correct? What would make the sidereal day then? Is there an objection to updating the page to reflect this new information? [[User:Benschwab|Benschwab]] ([[User talk:Benschwab|talk]]) 20:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm not sure if that hadn't already changed before. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 17:14, 25 July 2014 (CDT)<br />
:Okay thanks to [[User:UmbralRaptor]] on the IRC I was able to make calculations. He placed a command pod on top of the launch pad at a altitude of 72&nbsp;m in 0.19, 0.23.5 and 0.24.2 and always gets a orbital velocity of 174.6&nbsp;m/s.<br />
:The orbital velocity while standing on the surface is basically the rotational speed at that altitude. Now using <math>v = \frac{s}{t}</math> we can calculate the time required to do a full circle with a radius of 600&#8239;072&nbsp;m: <math>t = \frac{2 \cdot \pi \cdot r}{v}</math> = [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600072m*2*pi%2F%28174.6+m%2Fs%29%3D = 21594 seconds] (or 5h 59m 54s) which is almost 6 hours. When you do the reverse you get [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600072m*2*pi%2F%286+h%29+in+mm%2Fs%3D 174&#8239;554&nbsp;mm/s] which rounded gets you 174.6&nbsp;m/s. This makes me already pretty confident that the sidereal rotation is 6 hours and not the solar day.<br />
:Now lets give it a chance and use 6 hours as a solar day. But to calculate the rotational velocity the value needs to be converted into the sidereal rotation period, because on the way how the calculation works: When viewed from the north (or south) pole the craft on the launch pad is doing a circle and the circumference depends on the radius. To calculate a constant speed (a little physics: the velocity vector changes because the craft "curves" but the magnitude stays the same which is afaik called speed) the distance has to be divided by the time it took to cover that distance. The distance, is the circumference and the time it took that distance is the sidereal rotation period. If you use the solar day for that time you would need a larger distance (in this case, in theory the solar day can be shorter than the sidereal day) because Kerbin does rotate a bit further.<br />
:To convert that I used the formula from [[w:Sidereal_time#Sidereal_days_compared_to_solar_days_on_other_planets|Wikipedia]] and plugged in the solar day length and sidereal orbit: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6h*9203545s%2F%286h%2B9203545s%29 21459 seconds] (or 5h 59m 9s) ([http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x+%3D+y%2F%281-y%2Fc%29+solve+for+y for validity of the formula], c is the orbital period, x is the length of the solar day and y is the length of the sidereal day)<br />
:Using that we get [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600072m*2*pi%2F%286h*9203545s%2F%286h%2B9203545s%29%29+in+mm%2Fs%3D 174&#8239;964&nbsp;mm/s] which is rounded 175&nbsp;m/s. But that speed is considerably larger compared the previous result.<br />
:We also checked if the orbit has changed (which would have changed the length of a sidereal day if the solar day is fixed at 6 hours and got 13338240256m which is 261600000m lower than the value shown here in the infobox (13599840256&nbsp;m) but is exactly the radius of [[Kerbol]]. And the altitude in KSP is given from the body's surface so that checks out. But even though the orbit must have been considerably larger to get solar day and sidereal day close (and I'm currently not in the mood to determine how large the orbit must be that both length of days are close enough that solar day length would make sense).<br />
:So unless we didn't consider a specific factor I gather that the length of the sidereal day hasn't changed contrary to the changelog.<br />
:Also if you think about it, what would be the advantage. Defining times based on their sidereal values makes it easier because you don't have to take the orbit into account. I also revert the change in the infobox to a sidereal day length of exactly 6 hours. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 22:22, 4 August 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Map ==<br />
Does anyone now what projection the map is in? a link to the relevant page would be nice, i am refering to the one in the Topography section<br />
:What map do you mean? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small valign="middle">&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 02:37, 22 April 2013 (CDT)<br />
:I would guess [[w:Equirectangular projection|Equirectangular projection]] as the one degree in both axes in [[:File:Kerbin heightmap.jpg]] have always the same length. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 08:15, 18 May 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Orbits ==<br />
I crunched the numbers using a few different methods and I keep getting a discrepancy between my numbers and the listed figures (I calculate a GEO orbital velocity of ≈1109 m/s, a difference of exactly 100 m/s). Can someone confirm this? Otherwise, tell me why I'm wrong. ;) -- [[User:Eurousalas|Eurousalas]] ([[User talk:Eurousalas|talk]]) 14:51, 22 April 2013 (EST)<br />
:I can confirm both. [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+velocity&a=*C.orbital+velocity-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**CircularOrbitSpeed.vc-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.m-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.r--&f3=5.29157926281091e22+kg&x=0&y=0&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.m_5.29157926281091e22+kg&f4=2868.75+km+&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.r_2868.75+km+&a=*FVarOpt.1-_***CircularOrbitSpeed.r--.***CircularOrbitSpeed.h-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.radius---.*-- This confirm your value] while [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28G*5.29157926281091e22+kg%2F%28%2821600s%29^2*G*5.29157926281091e22+kg%2F%284*pi^2%29%29^1%2F3%29^0.5 this confirm the value of this page]. What formula do you use?<br />
::<math>v=\sqrt{\frac{G \cdot m}{\sqrt[3]{\frac{p^2 \cdot G \cdot m}{4 \cdot \pi^2}}}}</math><br />
::<small>m = orbited body mass, p = orbital period</small><br />
:— [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small valign="middle">&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 14:54, 22 April 2013 (CDT)<br />
::Thanks to a friend, I know what your mistake is: The GSO altitude is given relative to the planet's surface not gravity center. Now {{Tl|OrbitVelocity}} and [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+velocity&a=*C.orbital+velocity-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**CircularOrbitSpeed.vc-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.m-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.r--&f3=5.29157926281091e22+kg&x=0&y=0&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.m_5.29157926281091e22+kg&f4=3468.75+km+&f=CircularOrbitSpeed.r_3468.75+km+&a=*FVarOpt.1-_***CircularOrbitSpeed.r--.***CircularOrbitSpeed.h-.*CircularOrbitSpeed.radius---.*-- wolfram alpha] need this value to be from the gravity center. So you need to add 600 km to your altitude and then you get the correct value. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small valign="middle">&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 15:03, 22 April 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::Ack, I knew it would be an obvious mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, it would have bugged me for a long time. -- [[User:Eurousalas|Eurousalas]] ([[User talk:Eurousalas|talk]]) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Map ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to note that both true-colour maps are outdated. Saik0 on the KSP forums has made maps which are not outdated and in Full-HD and uploaded them on http://www.kerbalmaps.com/ . The website includes anomaly locations (optional), elevation maps, slope maps and true colour maps for all bodies in the Kerbol system except for Kerbol and Jool. He also put those maps online for download at https://mega.co.nz/#F!8EAnSL5Z!OAyLBQqrQtlmfL0GT8fcQg!EBYyXRxA . I have not uploaded any of these images myself yet, because e.g. the Duna true-colour map is something like 77.5 MB where 2 MB are allowed and I'm unable to compress them. I came here to ask if someone would be interested in compressing these for the community. Oh also, here have his KSP forums thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25148-Web-maps-of-all-bodies-(0-4-ALL-bodies-mapped!)?p=307335#post307335<br />
[[User:MmPMSFmM|MmPMSFmM]] ([[User talk:MmPMSFmM|talk]]) 07:42, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
:I'm wondering where the Kerbin map is on your download link? Here are my suggestions to compress them:<br />
:* Use a compression format like png/jpg<br />
:* Reduce the resolution of the image (may not be needed when compressing with jpg)<br />
:— [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 08:36, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
::I just found out why you can't find the Kerbin files on that MEGA site: on the forums the author says that "it is his first map and only has half the resolution of the others" and that he will upload it once he redoes it. Also I'm having problems with that MEGA site and Firefox, can't download the files, because of some message about accepting another message that doesn't appear for me... --[[User:Dgelessus|dgelessus]] <sup>([[User talk:Dgelessus|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Dgelessus|contribs]])</sup> 09:23, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::I'm able to download the images. I tested Gilly but when I tried to edit ''gilly_0.19.1_0.02197265625_-180_90_180_-90_16384x8192.elevation.tif'' (which I guess is the most important type of map?) I can't open or edit it because: ''convert: Sorry, can not handle images with 32-bit samples.''. Maybe I find a way to fix this and I'll upload some files. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 19:10, 2 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Making Geosynchronous Orbit More Exact? ==<br />
<br />
I see the formula for the calculation of geosynchronous orbit, but that only gives the orbit within the tens of metres. Through some calculations I've found that the closest I can get is '''2868750.72505''' metres. Would we be willing to change it?<br />
<br />
:Considering that it is practically impossible to get the orbit that exact, I don't think it's necessary. 2868.75km is more than close enough.--[[User:Ruedii|Ruedii]] ([[User talk:Ruedii|talk]]) 19:13, 23 July 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Elevation update ==<br />
With topology changes in 0.21, the highest known elevation will have likely changed. My current efforts with a 52 million sample file from ISA Mapsat show a new highest elevation of 6765.1 at location +61.6,+46.34, but I want to confirm that with a landing before updating the page and also wasn't sure if I had missed any higher points.--[[User:Khyron|Khyron]] ([[User talk:Khyron|talk]]) 02:12, 28 July 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Surface gravity ==<br />
I suggest adding a percentage value to the surface gravity inside the info boxes of the planets. This percentage value, denotes a comparison to Kerbin. So the 9,81m/s² acceleration of is 100%, and the value of other planet is an according value. Another way of denoting this value, would be to set Kerbin's s as 1 and then use that to compare the gravitational acceleration of other planet. [[User:Polemon|Polemon]] ([[User talk:Polemon|talk]]) 14:39, 11 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
:You are talking about using “g-force”: 1 ''g'' = 9.81 m/s². This is in theory possible, but I'm not quite sure if this is really helpful. The template is already enormous and [[Kerbol System/Table]] for example show them for you. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 15:06, 11 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
::Why useful: When designing crafts that are supposed to land on other celestial bodies, I like to test them on Kerbin beforehand. Doing this kind of calculation is "OK-ish", but I don't see why it shouldn't be in the infobox as well. [[User:Polemon|Polemon]] ([[User talk:Polemon|talk]]) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::btw, I fixed your comment - looks like you accidentally overwrote xZise's message. --[[User:Dgelessus|dgelessus]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Dgelessus|talk]]&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Dgelessus|contribs]])</sup> 15:21, 13 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
:::Okay as there is already enough space, I added it. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 05:04, 15 September 2013 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== G factor ==<br />
Does ''g'' = 9.8'''2''' m/s² ? [[Specific_impulse#Conversion_factor]] discusses back-calculating ''g'', and arrives at a value closer to 9.82. Any thoughts on breaking this out in to its own page, or at least "correcting" it here?--[[User:BlobKerman|BlobKerman]] ([[User talk:BlobKerman|talk]]) 07:50, 26 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
:The gravitational acceleration at the surface shown in the infobox is calculated, based on the mass and radius of Kerbin and using {{Tl|Body data/Gravity}}. So I wouldn't redefine g to 9.82 m/s². The conversion factor is arbitrarily chosen and "coincidentally" the same as the average surface gravity for real-world rockets. You could use 1 m/s² and in the US they would then choose something like 3.3 ft/s² and would get the same results. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 13:08, 26 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
::At least when I last checked, g for Isp and g for Kerbin's surface did not match up. Hence 9.82 for engine efficiency, but 9.81 for weight. [[User:UmbralRaptor|UmbralRaptor]] ([[User talk:UmbralRaptor|talk]]) 14:31, 26 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== No change - just asking the question. ==<br />
<br />
I've updated the KSC Biome section, I believed there were 11, but reports on the forums are showing that there could be as many as 30? Can anyone verify this? I'll try and take another look later and do a bit more exploration, but I only found 11 on the ground with EVA - Science Alert going off every time I stepped into a new biome.</div>Severedsolohttps://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=Kerbin&diff=50385Kerbin2014-10-11T06:41:51Z<p>Severedsolo: Updated KSC Biome info</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox/Body}}<br />
<br />
'''Kerbin''' is the home planet of the [[Kerbal]]s, the location of the [[Kerbal Space Center|Space Center]], and the main focus of [[Kerbal Space Program]]. It is also the [[w:Earth|Earth]] analog for the game and has two [[moon]]s named '''[[Mun]]''' and '''[[Minmus]]'''.<br />
<br />
Kerbin is the third planet in [[orbit]] around the star [[Kerbol]]. It is the third largest [[celestial body]] around Kerbol after [[Jool]] and [[Eve]]. Jool's moon [[Tylo]] has the same radius of Kerbin, though it may be classified as larger, as the highest point on Tylo is about 5&nbsp;km higher. However, Tylo has only 80% of Kerbin's mass.<br />
<br />
Reaching a stable orbit around Kerbin is one of the first milestones a player might achieve in the game. Doing so with a fuel-optimal ascent<ref>A fuel-optimal ascent is one which (a) minimizes velocity losses to gravity and [[atmosphere|atmospheric drag]] and (b) launches eastward (toward the 90 degree heading) to gain 174.5 m/s of orbital velocity for free, thanks to Kerbin's rotation.</ref> requires a [[delta-v]] of ≈4500&nbsp;m/s,<ref>See [http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24017-Least-delta-v-to-orbit this challenge on the forum] and a popular [http://i.imgur.com/CEZS1.png Kerbin delta-V chart]</ref> (Or about 3500 if you're using Ferram Aerospace Research mod) and is the second highest value after [[Eve]]. Many interplanetary missions expend over half of their delta-V in reaching Kerbin orbit. The energy required to escape a body from a given altitude is always exactly twice the kinetic energy of a circular orbit around the body at that height, leading one observer to remark:<br />
{{Quote|If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere.|Robert Heinlein|quoted on page 194 of ''A Step Farther Out'' by Jerry Pournelle}}<br />
<br />
== In-game Description ==<br />
<br />
{{Quote<br />
<br />
|A unique world, Kerbin has flat plains, soaring mountains and wide, blue oceans. Home to the Kerbals, it has just the right conditions to support a vast, seemingly undepletable population of the eager green creatures. <br><br> Reaching a stable orbit around Kerbin is one of the first things budding space programs strive for. It is said that he who can get his ship into orbit is halfway to anywhere.<br />
<br />
|Kerbal Astronomical Society}}<br />
<br />
== Topography ==<br />
[[File:Kerbin heightmap.jpg|thumb|left|Topographical representation of Kerbin's surface as of 0.18.2. Click for high resolution. by Zeroignite]]<br />
Kerbin has a roughly equal distribution of surface liquid water and solid land, with polar icecaps and scattered deserts. Some of its mountains exceed 6&nbsp;km in height, with the tallest peak being 6761&nbsp;m in altitude around the coordinates 46.4° E 61.6° N. The lowest point is almost 1.4&nbsp;km deep and about 313° south-west of the Kerbal Space Center.<br />
<br />
===Craters===<br />
[[File:KerbinCraterElevation.jpg|thumb|left|Terrain model centered on one of Kerbin's most pronounced craters]]<br />
Unlike other bodies in its system, Kerbin has few visible craters because its environment would erode craters from the few meteors that avoid the gravity or surface of its large moon and survive entry. Nevertheless, some geological formations indicate that bodies have violently collided with Kerbin: two planetary features appear to be impact craters that are coincidentally separated by nearly 180 degrees. The least eroded, and therefore presumably youngest, of the two (both are in excess of 100&nbsp;km diameter) lies along the coastline. The uplift is easily visible as a series of islands, and the feature has a central peak that pokes up through the water (also known as a rebound peak.) The other, and older of the two, is near the prime meridian in the northern hemisphere and is more easily missed, but its uplift rims are visible, and it has a central rebound peak.<br />
<br />
== Biomes ==<br />
[[File:KerbinBiomeMap.png|left|thumb|The biomes on Kerbin]]<br />
One of the few bodies with multiple [[Biomes#Kerbin|biomes]], Kerbin is second only to the Mun in how many it has. [[Science]] [[Science#Activities|experiments]] can be performed at all biomes, though Kerbin's low multipliers result in less impressive results than more distant worlds. Kerbin's biomes show a loose correlation with Earth's biomes and geographic features. Uniquely, Kerbin has eleven special location biomes at KSC, these are comprised of each building, the crawlerway, and KSC itself; these give a jumpstart to gathering Science points in [[Career]] mode.<br />
<br />
== Atmosphere ==<br />
<!-- SPECULATION: Kerbin has an atmosphere of unknown composition, though Kerbin's plants and animals would not survive without O<sub>2</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>, and CO<sub>2</sub>. -->Kerbin's [[atmosphere]] contains oxygen and extends to roughly 69,078 meters. Its atmosphere exponentially rarefies with altitude with a scale height of 5&nbsp;km.<ref>{{forum link|threadID=16000|threadName=&#91;KGSS&#93; Examining Kerbin's atmosphere}}</ref> The atmospheric pressure on Kerbin at an altitude expressed in meters, generally is:<br />
<br />
: <math>p_k = 1 \text{atm} \cdot e^{\frac{-altitude}{5000}}</math><br />
<br />
The thickness of Kerbin's atmosphere makes it suitable for [[aerobraking]] and using [[parachute]]s to save fuel during reentry and landing. Since {{Version|0.19}}, harmless supersonic and shock heating/reentry effects have been applied to objects flying above certain velocities. [[Debris]] flying in the lower atmosphere disappears once 2&nbsp;km from an active [[craft]], but above approx. 23&nbsp;km debris persists. Spent stages may continue in a stable orbit even if they are going through thick atmosphere that would destabilize the orbit of an active craft{{check version||0.24.2}}.<br />
<br />
The following table gives approximation of terminal velocities at different Kerbin altitudes, which are also the velocities at which a ship should travel for a fuel-optimal vertical ascent from Kerbin, given the game's model of atmospheric drag.<ref>http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/6664-Mini-challenge-max-altitude-with-this-supplied-spacecraft?p=100912&viewfull=1#post100912</ref> The optimal velocity after a [[gravity turn]] has been started is less than the corresponding value in the table.<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1kov5z/a_handy_chart_i_made_for_the_most_efficient/cbrdvuo</ref><br />
<br />
===Terminal Velocity Table===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Altitude (m) !! Velocity (m/s)<br />
|-<br />
| 75 || {{VT|Kerbin|75|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 1000 || {{VT|Kerbin|1000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 2000 || {{VT|Kerbin|2000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 3000 || {{VT|Kerbin|3000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 4000 || {{VT|Kerbin|4000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 5000 || {{VT|Kerbin|5000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 6000 || {{VT|Kerbin|6000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 7000 || {{VT|Kerbin|7000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 8000 || {{VT|Kerbin|8000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 9000 || {{VT|Kerbin|9000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 10000 || {{VT|Kerbin|10000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 12500 || {{VT|Kerbin|12500|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 15000 || {{VT|Kerbin|15000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 20000 || {{VT|Kerbin|20000|1}}<br />
|-<br />
| 32000 || {{VT|Kerbin|32000|1}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Orbits ==<br />
[[File:Sputnik in Kerbin's orbit.png|thumbnail|left|A Stayputnik MK2 satellite]]<br />
A [[synchronous orbit]] is achieved with a semi-major axis of {{OrbitAltitude|b=Kerbin|f=k|3=0}}. [[KEO|Kerbisynchronous Equatorial Orbit (KEO)]] has a circularly uniform altitude of {{OrbitAltitude|b=Kerbin|f=k}} and a speed of {{OrbitVelocity|b=Kerbin}}. From a 70&nbsp;km low equatorial orbit, the periapsis maneuver requires 676.5&nbsp;m/s and the apoapsis maneuver requires 434.9&nbsp;m/s. A syncronous [[w:Tundra orbit|Tundra orbit]] with eccentricity of 0.2864 and inclination of 63 degrees is achieved at 3799.7/1937.7 km. Inclination correlates with eccentricity: higher inclined orbits need to be more eccentric, while equatorial orbit may be circular, essentially KEO.<br />
<br />
A [[w:semi-synchronous orbit|semi-synchronous orbit]] with an orbital period of ½ of Kerbin's rotation period (2 h 59 m 34.7 s or 10774.7 seconds) is achieved at an altitude of {{OrbitAltitude|b=Kerbin|f=k|pf=1/2}} with an orbital velocity of {{OrbitVelocity|b=Kerbin|pf=1/2}}. A semi-syncronous [[w:Molniya orbit|Molniya orbit]] with eccentricity of 0.742<ref>“[http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/AstronNotes/Orbits0.HTM Some Major Orbit Types]” uses that, [[w:Molniya orbit#References|the Wikipedia article]] mentions 0.74105, and “[http://www.eumetcal.org/euromet/english/satmet/s3220/s3220332.htm Orbital Parameters of a Molniya Orbit]” uses 0.72.</ref> and inclination of 63 degrees can not be achieved, because the periapsis would be 36&nbsp;km below the ground. The highest eccentricity of a semi-synchronous orbit with a periapsis of 70&nbsp;km is 0.693<!---389102957193457747187874683092468355009655955115825698569= (1585.18 + 600-670)/(1585.18 + 600)--> with an apoapsis of 3700.36&nbsp;km.<br />
<br />
The [[w:Hill sphere|Hill sphere]] (the radius around the planet at which moons are gravitationally stable) of Kerbin is 136 185&nbsp;km, or roughly 227 Kerbin radii.<br />
<div style="clear:left;"></div><br />
<br />
== Interplanetary Travel ==<br />
<br />
From the lowest stable orbit around Kerbin (70&nbsp;km), the amount of delta-V needed to reach the orbits of other celestials is:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
!Body<br />
!Delta-V<br />
|-<br />
| [[Mun]]<br />
| ~860&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Minmus]]<br />
| ~930&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Eve]]<br />
| ~1033&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Duna]]<br />
| ~1060&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Moho]]<br />
| ~1676&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Jool]]<br />
| ~1915&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Eeloo]]<br />
| ~2100&nbsp;m/s<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kerbol]] escape<br />
| ~2740&nbsp;m/s<br />
|}<br />
<br />
For comparison, the Δv required to reach [[KEO|geostationary Kerbin orbit]] from [[LKO]] is 1.12 km/s<br />
<br />
== Reference Frames ==<br />
{{:Kerbin/RefFrame}}<br />
<br />
== Gallery ==<br />
<gallery><br />
Kerbin ISA Topo 0 21.jpg |Topographical map of Kerbin as of {{version|0.21}}<br />
Kerbin map from 0.14.jpg | A projection map of Kerbin, as of {{version|0.14.1|}} and before (including the old demo).<br />
Kerbin color.png | An accurate full-colour projection map of Kerbin as of {{version|0.14.2|}} to {{version|0.17.1|}}<br />
KerbinDeltaVMap.png | A map displaying the delta V needed from/to Kerbin<br />
Kerbin_mun_minmus.jpg | Kerbin, Mün and Minmus.<br />
Kerbin,_Mun,_and_Minmus.jpeg | Kerbin with its two natural satellites, the Mun and Minmus, seen from KEO. Minmus can be seen just above the horizon of Kerbin on the left side of the picture.<br />
kerbin map 800.gif | A topographic heightmap of Kerbin made with the ISA MapSat plugin<br />
Kerbinmun500550km.png | Kerbin and the Mun, barely visible from ~500,550,000m<br />
Kerbin ISA Topo.png | Topographical image of Kerbin '''from 0.17.1'''. The terrain is slightly different in the latest version.<ref>http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entry.php/247-A-Brave-New-World</ref><br />
Kerbin r0 1.png | An unmanned probe on escape trajectory, flying past Kerbin, Mün and Minmus<br />
KerbalPolar1.png | Kerbin's North Pole<br />
Solar eclipse in LKO.jpg | A solar eclipse from low Kerbin orbit (LKO).<br />
MunarOrbit.png | Kerbin as seen from munar orbit.<br />
ModifiedKerbin.png | Kerbin modified with texture mods as seen from a higher orbit.<br />
<br />
</gallery><br />
{{SpoilerBox<br />
|description=Spoiler images<br />
|content=<gallery><br />
Kermmunist_Launch_Site.png | The second launch site (currently unused).<br />
KEasterEgg.png | Kerbin from above with the Runway Easter Egg<br />
<br />
</gallery>}}<br />
<br />
== Changes ==<br />
;{{Version|0.24|}}<br />
*Rotational speed changed so solar day is now 6 hours (previously sidereal day was 6 hours). (Rotation speed not actually changed)<br />
;{{Version|0.22|}}<br />
*Biomes added.<br />
;{{Version|0.21|}}<br />
*Terrain revised to produce more detailed and interesting landforms.<br />
;{{Version|0.19.1|}}<br />
*Fixed ladders on the fuel tanks near the launchpad.<br />
;{{Version|0.19|}}<br />
*New mesh for the launchpad and area (no launchtower anymore).<br />
*New mesh for the runway, with lights and sloping edges for rovers.<br />
;{{Version|0.18|}}<br />
*Terrain overhaul: Entire planet redo. Deserts, darker and greener grass, islands, darker ocean/water, snow capped mountains. Looks more realistic.<br />
*Several [[List of easter eggs|Easter Eggs]] added.<br />
*Airport added to island off of KSC coastline. (Not a launching point)<br />
;{{Version|0.17|}}<br />
* Improved atmosphere visuals. <br />
;{{Version|0.15|}}<br />
* [[Minmus]] added.<br />
;{{Version|0.14.2|}}<br />
* Much more varied and taller terrain added. Prior to this, some mountain ranges exceeded 600 m in height, but the tallest point was at an altitude of approximately 900 m.<br />
;{{Version|0.12|}}<br />
* [[Mün]] added.<br />
;{{Version|0.11|}}<br />
* Terrain overhaul, oceans became wet.<br />
;{{Version|0.10.1|}}<br />
* Atmosphere extended from ~34,500 m to ~69,000 m.<br />
;{{Version|0.7.3|}}<br />
* Initial Release<br />
<br />
== Trivia ==<br />
Kerbin's continents are derived from libnoise,<ref>http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/</ref> a coherent noise generating library, though they have been increasingly modified with time.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
{{Celestial Bodies}}<br />
[[Category:Celestials]]<br />
[[Category:Planets]]</div>Severedsolo