Jacke

Welp, I don't have KSP 2 at the moment (current hardware can't run it and I really can't afford it). But skimming here tells me the KSP 2 gamesave system is confusing some really good KSP players. Whether it's UI or something internal or both, it's not quite right. And it really isn't explained to the player, when its complexity indicates it should be explained. That's not making KSP 2 look good to me. Talk about barely being alpha grade, but KSP 2 has been released (even if Early Access), but a save/restore system is a core game mechanic that shouldn't be in this state at this time.

@Triop, you're alive!

What I think limits what has been done so far is that the lifetime needed for cryogenic propellants (beyond lower amounts for fuel cells that have primarily used boil-off cooling) has just been at most a couple of days to allow for an extended parking LEO prior to the final burn. Beyond that for mission propellants it's almost completely storable hypergols or liquid noble gases for ion drives. Which means it's whole new experience for long term cryo propellant storage. At least it's not LH2. But I expect this will take a fair amount of testing to find what measures will be worth their expense in payload mass. Adding mass on the final stage of a rocket (for cooling gear or lost propellants) is near 1-to-1 in cost of payload mass.

I think it comes down to heating of the craft by the Sun (and possibly the reflected radiation from the lite side of the Earth). The time in the Earth's shadow doesn't radiate much of that heating, so it's a net heating. It's why the ISS has heat radiators. Heating cryogenic propellants will increase the vapour pressure inside until the vessel ruptures. However, by venting some of the boiloff, the specific heat of vapourization goes with the released vapour and helps keep the cryogenic propellants cool and vapour pressure down. There are potentially some design tweaks that could reduce this. But as far as I know, it's something that still needs research to find what is worth the increase in mass.

As long as no one talks about "terraforming" Venus in any time less than 1000's of years (and then there's the problem of preventing it from going all runaway hot spot again). If you could remove all radiation striking Venus and if Venus was a Black Body (ie. a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation), I believe it would take about ~800 years for Venus to cool to Earth's temperature. Things would be massively tough establishing a colony on the surface of Mars. The surface of Venus is a no-go except for uncrewed probes. Well, let's see if someone can establish an equivalent atmosphere floating base on Earth; I suspect they're a lot more complicated that it seems. Especially as if it starts falling it's doomed and everyone has to fly off it pronto. Then there's the whole problem of establishing them from orbit and taking and sending back rockets from orbit. And as you mentioned, it would need to get near everything that isn't available in Venus's atmosphere hauled from Earth or elsewhere in the Solar System. I agree. Even moreso, I don't think Musk should be in charge of anything. The information is out there supporting my position.

I was there for most of space exploration (my earliest space memory is watching the re-entry of Gemini 12) and I have to at least partly agree with you. You take any course on introducing new things to business and they'll talk about those new things, especially new technologies, needing champion(s). There's a reason Robert Heinlein wrote a story about a businessman drumming up support for going to the Moon and called it "The Man Who Sold the Moon". It has to be sold and resold as an idea, as a collection of projects that need support. (Don't even consider Elon Musk. Look at what he did with Twitter. Find the real story about other things he's done. Like this one.) When getting into space was linked to international competition, it was an easier sale. I remember Isaac Asimov writing about the launch of Sputnik 1 and how it galvanised him into writing much more fact articles and books for the new era. However, don't completely worry about this. If it's possible, the impact of another major achievement by China will certainly have some reaction. Like landing on the Moon. Hopefully the reactions will be useful ones.

Wow, so many good posts. Don't have the time to read them all. But the features that I think might be missed if I don't mention them: Realistic launch clamps like the ones used to hold real rockets at the base, not the silly part in KSP1. Proper corner RCS quads like what was used on the Lunar Module, with the 2 horizontal RCS jets at 90°. The original MK1 Cockpit from KSP. It was cool and it hurt to see it dropped from the game.

That (and Afghanistan) failed for the simplest of reasons: regime change is very hard. It's almost certain to fail when you stick in a government everyone knows is corrupt and does next to nothing for most people in the nation. I put it under the term "Winning the Peace", which is orders of magnitude harder than "Winning the War", which is damn hard enough. Indeed. My memory goes back to a hazy rememberance of the re-entry of Gemini 12, so I've followed a lot of it. From what I've read, the problem is it's one thing to need to compete in a Space Race with an opponent. But it's hard to keep the budgets flowing, especially when the opponent cuts its programs and finds other projects. Then there's the whole debacle of the Space Shuttle, which took up way too much of what budget remained, which was too much thought to be a "production space vehicle" when it was really just the next research space vehicle, one which had many flaws.

I think Kerbals would name it the Kracker. (And yes, they would taste it too.)

That's laughable. All problems exist to one degree or another in all groups, whether civil service or private corporation. It comes down to good leadership and organizational culture. That's what the military has in most countries and there are many that are very competent. Private industry didn't do enough development of aircraft. That's why the US created the N.A.C.A., to do what was needed in research. Beyond LEO and GEO satellites, there isn't a commercial market for anything (and all that was pioneered by NASA). Going beyond that for a private corporation is another take on PR. SpaceX didn't even bother to get any sort of science package for the first Falcon Heavy launch, just threw away a car.

The answer is still the same. Mystery Goo is green. Kerbals are green. Kerbals often perform acts or fly in rockets that would leave them less than...solid. Thus, Mystery Goo.

This is a mistake. Besides not being like it was on Earth, it means when learning the game, a new player is highly likely to kill a Kerbal. It would be much better to start with uncrewed probe missions. That allows a lot of variety and no Kerbals to harm while learning the ropes.

I've had the same troubles as @The Aziz with KSP1's Science+Tech System. But I've not been able to think of a better system except changing the unlocks of Tech Nodes by doing achievements, ie. doing something that connects with getting better tech. Alas, couldn't implement it as it would require me learning to make a .dll and a lot of the guts of KSP1 and I just can't get over the hump to do that. And that still begs the question: What to do with Science Points then? So, I looked at KSP1's Science Points as a prestige achievement that allows KSC to have a development program to unlock some new tech. Thus it can be completely unrelated to it. And that's why doing it again doesn't help as you're just repeating a mission. Need to do something new and flashy to get another breakthrough okayed.

It's a myth.

Quantum Mechanics is an incomplete Quantum Theory. Because it is background dependent and doesn't include Gravity. The space-time of Special Relativity is assumed as its background. It requires a macroscopic non-quantum observer to see values as a result of the "quantum waveform collapse" to make any sense. General Relativity is an example of a background independent theory (for at least what's included in the theory). There is no assumed coordinate system. Its components, masses and space-time, affect each other. The distribution of masses determines the shape of space-time and the shape of space-time determines how masses move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence All the attempts to make a theory of Quantum Gravity lack something (in many cases, many somethings). The best books to read to get a grip on this at a simple level have been written by Lee Smolin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Reborn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_Unfinished_Revolution Now, for a fictional story, I think trying to make a fictional extension or replacement of Quantum Mechanics isn't the best idea. Rather than express it as "willing suspension of belief", I phrase it as "willing extension of belief". Depending on the genre, you get to extend what's believable and real in your story. If you spend that effect on making a fictional version of Quantum Mechanics, you're using up story space for something that's window dressing. Does an author care about the details of internal or external ballistics. Not usually. They just have a gun that shoots, if loaded and in working order. The closest likely thing to those would be worrying about someone in the story who hand-loads their own ammo, especially if overloaded and the round bursts the breech. That's what you should worry about. Not the Quantum Mechanics, which will confuse some readers and irritate others. But what do you want to do, story-wise. I'd say try to avoid introducing new particles. That's been the problem with many particle physicists since the last true correct advance, the Higg's Mechanism and its particle. Far too many conjectured particles in the literature. What do you want to happen in your story? Express it in simple, inter-personal terms, because stories are about the interaction of people in their environment. Closest thing to what you're intending is what the late Isaac Asimov did in his fantastic story, "The Billiard Ball". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Billiard_Ball Note that Asimov had one of the characters create a machine that flattens space-time. He talks about the real physics known surrounded such effects but doesn't spend much time trying to explain how the machine makes that happens, because that level of detail doesn't matter to the story. He just uses existing physics to decide what a likely outcome of that would be.