Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kerbol"
(→All engines have a TWR below 1 at the surface?) |
m (→All engines have a TWR below 1 at the surface?) |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
I haven't tested it yet, but why is the TWR of all engines below 1? In the [[parts]] article are all engines listed with their TWR on [[Kerbin]]'s surface. But the surface gravity is only listed as 17.1 m·s⁻² or ≃ 1.76 g. So the TWR on Kerbol is the TWR of Kerbin divided by 1.76, which means that each engine with a TWR at Kerbin greater than 1.76 will have a TWR at Kerbol's surface greater than 1. And most engines have a listed TWR of 1.76. So is there another “force“ at work, or is this simply outdated? It appears that prior to 0.14 you could drop below the surface and thus increasing the TWR drastically, although I'm not sure what the gravitational acceleration is at the center. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 18:33, 6 October 2013 (CDT) | I haven't tested it yet, but why is the TWR of all engines below 1? In the [[parts]] article are all engines listed with their TWR on [[Kerbin]]'s surface. But the surface gravity is only listed as 17.1 m·s⁻² or ≃ 1.76 g. So the TWR on Kerbol is the TWR of Kerbin divided by 1.76, which means that each engine with a TWR at Kerbin greater than 1.76 will have a TWR at Kerbol's surface greater than 1. And most engines have a listed TWR of 1.76. So is there another “force“ at work, or is this simply outdated? It appears that prior to 0.14 you could drop below the surface and thus increasing the TWR drastically, although I'm not sure what the gravitational acceleration is at the center. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 18:33, 6 October 2013 (CDT) | ||
| − | :Yes, this seems incorrect. Assuming a spacecraft consisting of just the engine with | + | :Yes, this seems incorrect. Assuming a spacecraft consisting of just the engine with a massless fuel source, the Mainsail should have a TWR of 14.1 at the surface. Skipper would have a TWR of 9.2, and even the nuclear engine would have a TWR of 1.6. I haven't checked all of the engines but it looks like most would easily work for a lander. [[User:Mocha2007|Mocha2007]] ([[User talk:Mocha2007|talk]]) 11:06, 14 October 2013 (CDT) |
Revision as of 16:07, 14 October 2013
I know the sun has been called kerbol for a long time, but ingame, it is simply 'the sun'. Kerbol only exists in the memories of old timers. This should be mentioned here.
Contents
M class? More like K...
Based upon the distance to Kerbin, to have earth-like temperatures the star would need to be a low K class minimum. K class stars are still red, so just because 'Red Dwarf' is commonly associated with M class doesn't mean that all red dwarfs are M class.
Just saying, I think it's more likely that kerbol is a K class Main sequence star (KnV, where n is either 6,7, or 8.) --Mocha2007 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have been doing some crude maths of my own on this, and based on the Mass of Kerbol and thus the Luminosity, I see this as being something more like high G, around 8 or 9. Though it does look like it is a very small star for such mass and luminosity. Though This is based of of the mass and radius given from this wiki, which I do not know how accurate they are. Thecoshman (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Use of Planet Box
As the very name suggest, the planet box is for planets, much of the information it would contain is 'N/A' when dealing with stars. Could someone with a better mastery of templates make a more applicable 'star box'. It may seem a bit redundant for the now, but I dare say eventually inter-stellar travel will be possible. Thecoshman (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Expression Error: Unexpected < Operator
Ok... I wanted to change the class of Kerbol form star to K-Class Star. It worked, but in bright red letters popped the message: "Expression Error: Unexpected < Operator". So like the good person i am, i reverted my changes, but it stayed. I think it has something to do with the Orbital Period Hours. Anybody know what the heck is going on???--Azivegu (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Dutch link
Could somebody link up the Dutch language Kerbol Page to this one like the Russian one is done???--Azivegu (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Kerbol
Though it probably is indeed a K-class, it may also be a white dwarf. If Kerbol actually existed, it would be a T or Y class brown dwarf, because no star that small can undergo nuclear fusion.--Mocha2007 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Trivia Terminology
most of the terms used in the trivia and the best ways of getting to Kerbol are terms that I myself don't understand. I'm going to look them up, but as a suggestion, I'd reccomend a link to a wikipedia article for what they mean
Name
The name of the Star in-game is "Sun", so I'm unsure as to why the name of this page is "Kerbol", surely it should be the same as in-game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted (talk • contribs)
- It's partly historical reasons (the name "Kerbol" predates the star being an object by some time), and as a way to distinguish the star from our Sun (It's frustrating getting newbies to realize that Kerbin != Earth, Mün != Luna, etc). The name is fairly entrenched in the game population at this point, though I wouldn't mind if Squad picked a wholly new one... UmbralRaptor (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2013 (CST)
- I support this. Calling the page "Kerbol" does nothing except help spread misinformation Holomanga (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2013 (CDT)
- Now but this isn't the real Sun. Luckily you can differ between Kerbal celestial bodies and real ones by the name, except for the Sun. As there is a redirect from Sun although those who searching for it get redirected here. And it is stated that it is also called the Sun in the first sentence. But I made it clearer that “the Sun” is the official name. — xZise [talk] 11:38, 27 May 2013 (CDT)
Rotation speed
If you go into interplanetary space, and check the 'surface' speed indicator, you will see the surface is spinning at well over 700 km/s.. should this be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahlzun (talk • contribs)
- The orbital velocity at the surface is okay 67 km/s which would result in the sun ripping apart. — xZise [talk]
- The "surface" indicator on the navball actually indicates how fast you move in relation to the surface. --dgelessus (talk, contribs) 11:35, 27 May 2013 (CDT)
Outdated Surface height
Unless I somehow read the page wrong, the invisible surface height of ~4500 km is outdated as of 0.21.1, proved by my small sundiving probe currently at ~4000 km. - JonSpace_CEO (i'm also unsure of how to timestamp as i'm new to the wiki)
Just went back and checked, the new lowest altitude is ~1300 meters , not ~4500 km (with screenshots to prove it)
You will probably have to click on the picture if you want to see for yourself, but the altimeter reads 3999 km
The last picture of the probe, at ~1000 km, before it crashes into Kerbol.
The crash itself, the altimeter is not to be trusted as it is changing rapidly both up and down.
The mission report after the crash, with the altimiter reading 1284 meters.
- Note: You can sign your posts with --~~~~.
- What does the altimeter read, when you crash somewhere else into Kerbol? If it is almost always about 1.3 km this should be fixed. — xZise [talk] 03:51, 8 September 2013 (CDT)
Can we possibly get someone else to do it as i don't really feel like repeatedly crashing probes into the sun (it gets kinda monotonous) also, i'm fairly busy with some stuff right now so i can't do it anytime soon. --JonSpace CEO (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2013 (CDT) (thanks for the tip on signing btw)
All engines have a TWR below 1 at the surface?
I haven't tested it yet, but why is the TWR of all engines below 1? In the parts article are all engines listed with their TWR on Kerbin's surface. But the surface gravity is only listed as 17.1 m·s⁻² or ≃ 1.76 g. So the TWR on Kerbol is the TWR of Kerbin divided by 1.76, which means that each engine with a TWR at Kerbin greater than 1.76 will have a TWR at Kerbol's surface greater than 1. And most engines have a listed TWR of 1.76. So is there another “force“ at work, or is this simply outdated? It appears that prior to 0.14 you could drop below the surface and thus increasing the TWR drastically, although I'm not sure what the gravitational acceleration is at the center. — xZise [talk] 18:33, 6 October 2013 (CDT)
- Yes, this seems incorrect. Assuming a spacecraft consisting of just the engine with a massless fuel source, the Mainsail should have a TWR of 14.1 at the surface. Skipper would have a TWR of 9.2, and even the nuclear engine would have a TWR of 1.6. I haven't checked all of the engines but it looks like most would easily work for a lander. Mocha2007 (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2013 (CDT)
