# updated_vacuum Easy Method to simulate Heat Radiation + Vacuum Suggestion

## Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Currently the surface is heating up too much. I feel that since the vacuum eats away liquids and gases, it can also be made as a heat sink which exponentially conducts heat off the solid object based on temperature difference. Its equilibrium temp can be around free space temperature.

That said, I also feel that vacuum should not eat away liquids and gases. The surface may be exposed to space, but does not mean there's zero gravity there. Hell, gravity at the inside of the asteroid should be lesser than in the surface as per physics.

Vacuum should be just a heat sink. Gases will automatically spread in space and leave off the edges of the surface and will be an equivalent of "gases escaping at escape velocity". Liquids won't escape like that at all unless its struck with something (like a meteor) when a splash can attain escape velocity.

There will always be some (minuscule) air surrounding a large body. The quantity of air depends on the body's mass. Hence gases escaping off the edges seem better than being vanished magically everywhere vacuum tile is present.

##### Share on other sites

I think the keyword is equilibrium.

If they make an equivalent to infrared radiation so the surface of the asteroid would lose energy people could use the whole surface or easier a part of it as a heat sink.

The steaming hot piles of regolith are annoying since you can barely put them to good use though. I think the best way to go would be to give us a good use for a lot of regolith.

My suggestion are. Critters that eat regolith. Regolith as building material, less insulating than abysalite but more than let's say igneous rock. Regolith for energy production via an in-game concept of the helium-3 mechanic where you would need to make helium from regolith with an machine and use water to make power.

##### Share on other sites

Totally true.

But the formula for the exponential decay of temperature is not rapid. It'll be rather high if the difference in temp is high. As the difference becomes lower and lower, the rate of temp decrease will become lesser. So it'll be quite some time before the rocks cools.

Also, radiation is mostly surface based phenomenon (if i'm not wrong). But I don't see how it's going to be implemented here.

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ArunPrasath said:

ll always be some (minuscule) air surrounding a large body.

For game sake it`s better to just ignore miniscule amounts of stuff. Gasses dissappearing is fine imo especially with the "third" dimention of the backwall.

As for liquids there are 2 things that should realistically happen to them. They should either radiate their heat away and turn solid. Or do that too slowly and vaporize beacause of low pressure. Currently the latter is happening. I`d prefer the first option if we get proper heat radiation.

##### Share on other sites

Really if this is an asteroid gravity should be nearly negligible inside the asteroid too.  I always felt that the speed that objects fall in the game is way too high for the setting and is a major failure to SELL the setting.

##### Share on other sites

I agree with the original poster that the space biome should be a source of cold, rather than heat.

If the bottom of the map is a source of heat, then it makes sense that the top of the map is a source of cold.

This would also be realistic. According to this article, the average temperature of the surface of a typical asteroid is -100 degrees Fahrenheit or -73 degrees Celsius. In contrast to that, the average temperature of the space biome in Oxygen Not Included is +300 degrees Celsuis, so nearly 400 degrees higher.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tekky said:

According to this article, the average temperature of the surface of a typical asteroid is -100 degrees Fahrenheit or -73 degrees Celsius.

But asteroïds don't have magmatic activity.

So, it's more like a small planetoïd that lacks atmosphere due to constant meteors impacts.

Confirmed by the fact that there's gravity. And also because we're "blocked" on the side of the map, which means we only see a tiny part of this space objet.

##### Share on other sites

Enable debug mode and enlarge the painter to 10 tiles wide. Then zoom out completely and move mouse to the very edge of the map (left or right edge). You'll see that one half of the circle (representing the painting area) appears in the other side of the map!

This proves that the developers are looking to implement a circular map! Also, its possible that they may tell that this is a small planet than an asteroid.

##### Share on other sites

As a physicist, I'm here just to note that the thermal radiation power is not exponential, but rather T4. Just a nitpick.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ArunPrasath said:

Enable debug mode and enlarge the painter to 10 tiles wide. Then zoom out completely and move mouse to the very edge of the map (left or right edge). You'll see that one half of the circle (representing the painting area) appears in the other side of the map!

This proves that the developers are looking to implement a circular map! Also, its possible that they may tell that this is a small planet than an asteroid.

It`s already implemented. Dupes can run in circles at the top of the map. Just the lower parts still have the neutronium walls. Maybe a circular map is planned in the future but it would take some serious changes in the worldgen for that to work.

##### Share on other sites

I like the idea of heat radiating into space, and the fact that it didn't really confused me when I first reached the surface. It might be nice to have a radiator panel building that would substantially expedite this. I'm not a fan of removing the liquid boiloff, however. If they really want to be realistic, liquids would turn into gasses in a vacuum, and the gases would be lost, but the current implementation is pretty good while being less complex.

##### Share on other sites

the moon has no atmosphere, and yet

Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).Oct 27, 2017

so even tho daytime on the asteroid is only 300 seconds, were getting temperatures of 519 to 681 degrees farenheit.

space is COLD not warm :||

##### Share on other sites

10 hours ago, geniusthemaster said:

the moon has no atmosphere, and yet

Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).Oct 27, 2017

so even tho daytime on the asteroid is only 300 seconds, were getting temperatures of 519 to 681 degrees farenheit.

space is COLD not warm :||

Do you know, the typ of star shining on the asteroid? Do you know the distance?

And nope, space is nothing. Its not warm, thats right, but its NOT cold. To be cold, there has to be a medium to determine a temperature. There is none. (or nearly none, but 1-2 atoms per cubicmile...)

Thats the real paradoxon with space. If something would be there, it would be warm, because atoms would move, and energy comes from suns.

Everybody thinks, okay, it its not warm, it has to be cold, because thats how it works. Yes in an atmosphere or with materials. But in space, the name mentions it, there is nothing but space. And if there is nothing, it cant be cold.

##### Share on other sites

Do you know, the typ of star shining on the asteroid? Do you know the distance?

But its all useless cause we dont have heat radiation, we dont have heating by light from star, only we have is heat from comets.

And nope, space is nothing. Its not warm, thats right, but its NOT cold. To be cold, there has to be a medium to determine a temperature. There is none. (or nearly none, but 1-2 atoms per cubicmile...)

Usually "space is cold" means that without heat source(heat from near star) there is nowhere object can get heat from in open space, but object always irradiate heat back in space, so most objects in interstellar space(far from stars) have low temperature(not 0K nor 1K, there still some background heat radiation across all space).

##### Share on other sites

I kind of like the idea of this but the reverse would be true. Without a surface atmosphere and I assume there isn't a magnetosphere around the asteroid the colony is in, then in the morning hours, the surface of the asteroid would be baking hot. Also, losing heat via black body radiation is among the slowest ways to lose heat so even though space is really really cold, it would be a safe bet that it would need a large area to irradiate head effectively.

In the real world though, there is work being done to do this:

So I honestly think that this mechanic be implemented in the game.

##### Share on other sites

I`ll just say that the devs probably designed the surface as a cold area. You can see that by the starting temperature of it. Before any asteroid hits it`s pretty cold.

Now the often asteroid rains are much closer to the situation when planets were forming. The heat generated by asteroid hits would turn the surface into magma. After millions of years most of the asteroids fell on something and the planets started cooling down. In ONI we seem to be somewhere in between. Asteroids won`t melt the surface but will keep it hot.

##### Share on other sites

Why is everyone assuming that the asteroid isn't ridiculously close to a star?

After all, there is an incredibly intense light source, and if we take the surface temperature (before meteor impacts add thermal mass) and use the fact that there is no atmosphere to contain heat, the distance from a star (assume one exactly like Sol, for sanity) should be calculable.

I'm no physicist, nor experienced in thermodynamics in space, but the equation should be something like:

[Heat gained per cycle from a Sol-type star] - [Heat lost to radiation back into space] * [Distance from Sol]

##### Share on other sites

There sniped above about moon temperature, it cools down in one cycle(~28 days) from +127C to -173C, also: Mercury closest to sun have one side most of time faced to sun and surface temperature on lit side only +427C, so at this point(at 700K) all incoming heat irradiated back. This cooling effect is significant, but non linearly depends on temperature, the higher temperature the faster it will cools.

So even if asteroid was close to star, during night it's surface temperature suppose to drop significantly, the closer to star the higher would be temperature difference at day and night. So this is worth adding into the game.