Record Breaking G Forces??

[Kuebodeaux]

I'm not sure if these are a glitch or completely possible with the current game mechanics but these are some insane G's!!!

I wasn't sure how to post pics to this so I'll link imgur

https://imgur.com/a/7J4Bo

In case the link does not work ill post the essential details here. (P.S. if you look at the system map you'll know exactly which ones to go to [noob])

System Name: Gria Hypue KM-I b40-10
System Distance: 14,000 Ly~
G Force: 15.98g

System Name: Skauduae LW-D b57-5
System Distance: 10,500 Ly~
G Force: 19.24g

System Name: Drojaea NZ-N d7-7
System Distance: 3,500 Ly~
G Force: 24.28g
This one is kinda far from the star but worth it. (17k Ls)

I'm not sure what the highest gravity planet found so far is but i feel these are up there and I'm sure there are even stronger ones out there.
I never tried landing on these but I would love to see videos of other trying to do so! so please link your videos if you try it!

Happy Flying!

 

[Eahlstan]

You are confusing mass with gravity.

Seems like you have no Detailed Surface Scanner outfitted, get yourself one to get more data.

 

[varonica]

You are confusing mass with gravity.

Seems like you have no Detailed Surface Scanner outfitted, get yourself one to get more data.

As mentioned by Eahlstan, mass is unrelated to surface gravity, you can't tell the surface gravity of a body from it's mass alone, you need the radius, which you have, this will allow you to calculate density, it's complicated but the surface gravity of a planet or star with a given mass will be approximately inversely proportional to the square of its radius, and the surface gravity of a planet or star with a given average density will be approximately proportional to its radius.

So, g = G*M/R^2, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, G is the universal gravitational constant, M is mass, and R is distance.

Keep in mind that gravity is a measure of acceleration whereas mass is a measure of quantity, you will find it easier not to confuse the two if you keep that in mind. The DSS, fortunately, will do the gravity calculation for you. So a planet with a large mass can have a very low surface gravity if it has a large radius. It's very unusual to have an icy body with more than 4.5 gravity, they just aren't dense enough. Taking a quick look at your (pictured)body I expect it will come in around the 2.3g. Now grab yourself a DSS and tell me how wrong I am.

 

[Qohen Leth]

And for reference, the current landable record holder for Gs is Kyloalks DL-Y G17 4 if I'm not mistaken, with 9.87G. It's not an icy body

 

[Kuebodeaux]

I did not realize that the g's the scan mentioned only referred to the planetary mass. I always assumed it was the gravitational force. And to be honest I thought I had a DSS on my ship but upon looking you're right I do not. Will that have told me the Gravitational force?

Sorry for the misleading post!

 

[Eahlstan]

I did not realize that the g's the scan mentioned only referred to the planetary mass. I always assumed it was the gravitational force. And to be honest I thought I had a DSS on my ship but upon looking you're right I do not. Will that have told me the Gravitational force?

Sorry for the misleading post!

Yes a DSS will list the gravitation as an extra entry in the list.
There are no 'Gs' mentioned in your screenshots anyway, the numbers you posted are clearly labeled as 'earth masses'.

 

[Major Klutz]

Gravity is not displayed in your linked screenshots.
G force depends mostly on the planet density, not the Mass.

You should have a DSS equipped to see details such as Gravity and available minerals.

The Highest known gravity landable planet is Kyloalks DL-Y g17 4
Link: https://www.edsm.net/en/system/bodi...7/details/idB/14296/nameB/Kyloalks+DL-Y+g17+4
It is ~9.9G at >96 Earth masses and a radius of 19,925 km

 

[varonica]

I did not realize that the g's the scan mentioned only referred to the planetary mass. I always assumed it was the gravitational force. And to be honest I thought I had a DSS on my ship but upon looking you're right I do not. Will that have told me the Gravitational force?

Sorry for the misleading post!

No problem, there's a lot to learn in this game. Wouldn't be the one time I've equipped a new explorer and forgot a vital piece of gear. I once built a new ship, flew a few thousand light years, landed, went to deploy my SRV and realised I had completely neglected to buy one. Boy did I feel a bit foolish.

 

[BaldEagle]

No problem, there's a lot to learn in this game. Wouldn't be the one time I've equipped a new explorer and forgot a vital piece of gear. I once built a new ship, flew a few thousand light years, landed, went to deploy my SRV and realised I had completely neglected to buy one. Boy did I feel a bit foolish.

Yep - done that (more than once!)

 

[Warm Considering]

So, gravity is a funny thing. It scales with mass, not density. The same mass made more dense does not have an impact on gravitational pull.

Density is not a parameter in Isaac Newton's equation.

Best explained in this Quora article.

 

[Orvidius]

That's true, except that the density will determine the object's radius, and thus the distance at which you're feeling gravity when you're on the surface.

 

[Major Klutz]

So, gravity is a funny thing. It scales with mass, not density. The same mass made more dense does not have an impact on gravitational pull.

Density is not a parameter in Isaac Newton's equation.

Best explained in this Quora article.

That's not entirely true. Radius and Mass are factors in the equation and radius and mass together define the density.
When specifying the gravity of a planet, we're normally stating the G force on the planetary surface.

Gravity doesn't scale with mass alone. The entire universe contains a lot of mass but thankfully it's not very dense or we might be ripped apart by tidal forces.

In those examples of a large cloud, a smaller cloud and a dense object, the gravitational gradient will be significantly different between the three.
The large cloud's mass is distributed widely and your mass will feel that pull distributed across a wider area. You won't get the full force toward the center since some of the mass is to your side.

 

[Warm Considering]

That's just NOT true. Radius and Mass are factors in the equation and radius and mass together define the density.

Gravity doesn't scale with mass alone. The entire universe contains a lot of mass but thankfully it's not very dense.

Radius is the range from the gravitational source. The closer you are to it, the greater the pull. Radius has nothing to do with the volume of the mass. More mass == more gravity. Less mass == less gravity. There's an engineer and an astrophysicist telling you that density is not a factor in gravitational pull. If you take the mass of the sun, and pack it down the size of a ping pong ball, it has the same gravity.

 

[Major Klutz]

... If you take the mass of the sun, and pack it down the size of a ping pong ball, it has the same gravity.

It does NOT have the same SURFACE gravity in that situation.
It would only have the same gravity as measured by acceleration from a large distance, such as a planetary orbit.
The gravitation gradient is higher when it's compressed so you would notice a significant difference in surface gravity as well as tidal forces, roche limit, etc.

 

[Warm Considering]

It does NOT have the same SURFACE gravity in that situation.
It would only have the same gravity as measured by acceleration from a large distance, such as a planetary orbit.
The gravitation gradient is higher when it's compressed so you would notice a significant difference in surface gravity.

Surface gravity is matter of distance from the gravitational source. The more dense an object, the closer to the gravitational source you can get. Still the same gravity however.

Here's another source on it.

 

[Major Klutz]

Surface gravity is matter of distance from the gravitational source. The more dense an object, the closer to the gravitational source you can get. ...

This is exactly what I have been saying.

The gravity of a landable planet In-Game, as shown on the DSS scan, is the surface gravity, which is what we're talking about here.
You can calculate the surface gravity yourself by using the planet radius and planet mass. The DSS just does that math for you.

 

[Warm Considering]

Another way to look at it, Major Klutz, is that the more mass an object has, the greater it's potential density. Higher gravity will squeeze more matter into a smaller space, so, by merely adding more matter you increase just how dense that matter can get. Ergo, density is factored out of the equation, because even density scales with mass when volume is a question of gravitational strength. More mass, more gravity, smaller volume, higher density, and on and on until you hit the Schwarzschild radius. At the end of the day, mass is the only thing that matters when it comes to gravity, because you can't even measure gravity until you have sufficient mass.

 

[Orvidius]

At the end of the day, mass is the only thing that matters when it comes to gravity, because you can't even measure gravity until you have sufficient mass.

I don't think anyone was claiming that density impacts an object's overall gravitation. They're talking about surface gravity, in which distance (radius) absolutely is a factor. Unless you want to talk about black holes, the Schwarzschild radius isn't necessary here.

EDIT: Scrolled back a bit, now I see where the confusion started. I think the point has been clarified pretty well afterward though.

 

[space voyager]

I did not realize that the g's the scan mentioned only referred to the planetary mass. I always assumed it was the gravitational force. And to be honest I thought I had a DSS on my ship but upon looking you're right I do not. Will that have told me the Gravitational force?

Sorry for the misleading post!

Get DSS, you're wasting a lot of your time without it. You don't even know which mats you'll gather on a landable body.

Oh, I made this same mistake after finding 22+ Earth mass landable. Its radius was far larger than Earths though so it only "yielded" some 2Gs...

Funny, I found my post about it at StrategyCore, below 4th picture.

 

[varonica]

Radius is the range from the gravitational source. The closer you are to it, the greater the pull.

While I can understand what you are trying to say, the way you are saying it is nonsense. The radius is the distance from the surface of the planet to the core, it has nothing to do with gravity except as part of the calculation. The source of gravity is each and every elemental particle that makes up the body we are referring to. If you are standing on the surface of a planet some of the gravitational force is actually coming from the side and the atmosphere above you will be exerting a gravitational force upwards. So there really is no gravitational "source" there's a gravitational field, the Higgs field. As a result calculations of surface gravity for any particular point on a body are approximations based on an average distribution of matter in the body, hence the use of density to calculate surface gravity, it gives a better overall result, but for any given point it will never be exactly correct.

I'm all for simplifying things down to make them easy to understand,but we have to be careful we don't simplify them down to nonsense.