Bill Phil

That may be possible, or it may not be. Or it may not be practical if it is possible. Even if it is practical there will be pretty large populations that refrain from doing so. That said, I don’t believe this will be an issue - because we’ll understand pretty quickly that colonizing a planet isn’t really worth the effort.

Even if it could, due to special relativity you can only use it for one leg of the journey. This means you still have to accelerate conventionally to either get there or to come back. So it's much less useful - unless you can use it to warp at high fractions of c and maybe even alter the relative flow of time in the bubble. Then a 99.99% c ship would be possible. The question is how difficult would such a drive be.

The problem is whether or not it’s possible to scale engines down to missile size. There may be a minimum size which limits the smallest possible vehicle size. And in some cases larger engines of the same type are more efficient.

Engines like that can be “geared down” to higher thrust and lower isp. A variety of engine concepts could likely fit the various performance regimes of MH in KSP 2. Advanced nuclear thermal engines and a variety of fusion engines could do it if I recall. But that depends on what MH’s performance in the game is. According to Atomic Rockets MH has an isp around 1700 seconds. Impressive. But gas core fission could achieve that. And even nuclear pulse could achieve that by gearing down. The real question is how scalable the other tech is. And Project Orion is already confirmed which has a performance envelope that goes from around 2000 seconds to 10 thousand. There’s also possibilities for fusion engines that could gear down. But we won’t know until later.

I suppose it’s related to the inherent difference in time that MP would cause for KSP - that is there would have to be a way to account for different time warp settings in a server so that the game works. Introducing Special Relativity wouldn’t be hard mathematically - rather it might be problematic because you have to accomodate it. A way to switch reference frames in map view might be desirable. But then you might as well add n-body physics since that’s also pretty easy mathematically and having the ability to switch between different reference frames in map view would also benefit that. There may also be a sizable performance hit as various transformations would be needed at all times and some calculations can be relatively intensive. It may also overly complicate multiplayer. I can’t see it being worth it. It likely won’t add much challenge and it doesn’t seem to improve the experience. But that’s just me.

Yup. And SLS is much less capable than the Saturn V when it comes to TLI throw weight - the result of using a vehicle configuration that is optimized more-so for sending light payloads to high energy trajectories. Part of it is the use of the RL-10 on the upper stages. Good engine for low payload masses, but you need higher thrust to better combat gravity losses. The S-IVB had something like ten times the thrust of the ICPS, and more than twice the thrust of the proposed EUS. Add to that a sub-optimal staging set up and limitations brought on by other engineering problems and you get a vehicle that really just isn't as useful. We're at the point where a recreation of the same configuration as the Saturn V but with modern technology (a 10 meter diameter three stage rocket) would have been a better option.

It wouldn't be too bad if they could get a decent launch rate - or even just two at around the same time to do a Lunar Double Rendezvous. But they can't do that... so it's pretty terrible.

Sure. But then you run into issues of how fast and effectively you can aim the laser. Ships that are AU away will be tiny dots - 100 meters at 1 AU is 6.67e-10 radians. And the lag between target observation and the beam arriving at the target will be around 16 minutes and a lot can happen in 16 minutes. Even just tiny movements may make it very difficult to land a surprise hit, and a tiny movement is all you need to effectively dodge since we’re dealing with sub-nanoradian accuracies here. A meter per second in any perpendicular direction will put the target a km away from where you observed it. And that’s assuming you instantly arrive at a targeting solution and fire the laser the moment you observe the enemy come into range. It would take time to acquire a solution and move to it. Even if only a few seconds there’s a good chance the solution is too out of date to be useful. I have a hard time seeing such high accuracy being desired in space combat, especially if you want it quickly. Any mistake and you miss. It may be possible but the question becomes whether or not it’s desirable. If the range becomes multi-AU then it would be preferable to have battle stations that don’t really move from their orbits and just destroy anything you don’t like. Put a whole bunch all around the solar system and the entire system is basically a fortress. Destroy any internal and external threat.

Oh, they won't freeze. The body takes an extremely long time to freeze in vacuum. They may not get roasted too bad by Mvac either.

Sure - but expensive is still expensive. Antimatter won't be cheap - ever. It will always be expensive. Relative to FTL, antimatter is easy - but not cheap. We know how to make it and have seen it before. But that just means it's easier to do - not necessarily cheaper. Not only that but even if it is cheaper it's still not likely to be needed. You have FTL. You probably also have other technology that pretty much destroys any usefulness antimatter might have. Black holes could provide immense energy both with small masses and in dense packages. Advanced understanding of particle physics could allow direct energy conversion without using antimatter at any step of the way. Antimatter has very few unique uses to advanced civilizations - of any tech level.

How is that relevant? We're discussing particle beam weapons that have speeds close to the speed of light - in that context antimatter isn't worth it. But it's also not worth it in the context you describe - because we can use other more effective and cheaper weapons to destroy targets like that. For example, a macron beam loaded with fusion or fission fuel. There's never a reason to use antimatter as a weapon. It just isn't worth the expense. It's insanely expensive.

I believe the idea is that as Jupiter gained mass it gained mass from material that wasn't quite in orbit around the proto-sun - the gas was still capable of supporting itself against gravity to some extent due to its own internal kinetic energy. Then the average angular momentum after each collision is not high enough to maintain the current orbit, so Jupiter falls toward the proto-sun, experiencing a kind of "drag". Keep in mind that Jupiter wasn't at its current mass, it gained mass throughout the entire process. Some of the material it collided with was captured and some wasn't. This is also part of the explanation for why the asteroid belt has so little mass (getting kicked out or getting absorbed by Jupiter), and even related to Mars having less mass than what might be expected. So there's enough material - much of it is in Jupiter today. The Sun was likely rotating faster billions of years ago - and since Jupiter was closer the tides would have been stronger. So it could potentially bring Jupiter to its current orbit. The tidal acceleration affect would have been stronger initially since Jupiter would have been closer and the Sun would have been rotating faster. Though I suspect this may not be entirely enough - some gravitational effect from Saturn likely also factors in. It's also possible that Jupiter didn't migrate that far into the inner solar system, instead reaching an equilibrium point where the drag was much lower.

Except you can shoot a non-antimatter particle beam at 99.233% the speed of light and it would be just as destructive as an antimatter beam at 99% the speed of light - it would have equivalent energy. There's no reason to use antimatter as the particles in the beam - you're only wasting resources to make that antimatter. It ain't worth it.

I’d be much more worried about the captain doing something with his torch drive that would result in unforeseen consequences.

I would design it like a luxury hotel - cause that’s what it is. Throw in a few extras to take into account free fall conditions and other unique aspects of space, and you got a solid design. Flight works fine. I believe that was the terminology for airships back in the day, despite days long voyages. Or just use voyage.

Nuclear pulse propulsion. That and a better game loop facilitated by the colony system.

I think this would be useful. KSP has historically had similar things - 3d mice are probably used by even fewer people, and yet the game supports it. There are far more problems with KSP's optimization than whatever bloat peripheral interaction would add. KSP 2 should be better optimized out of the gate than KSP, so if it adds to the experience of some people then it would probably be worth adding. Would be real nice to not have to constantly switch between different windows, that's for sure. I wonder how well a mini-map would work? Probably not well, but if it was expandable? Hmm.

From what I recall there are multiple engines using metallic hydrogen - some are mid game and some are late game. I think the performance regime could be taken over by other propulsion systems though, so it’s not even strictly necessary.

Stargate used transporters and rings to send warheads to other ships.

I don't know what you're referring to. I wasn't referring to us. What I was saying (or trying to say) is that any conflict between advanced technological civilizations won't use antimatter based weaponry. The reason is because antimatter just isn't worth making. To make 1 tonne of antimatter requires a minimum of 2 tonnes of mass-energy. With that much energy you could produce billions of tonnes of steel, or billions of tonnes of aluminum. Or hundreds of thousands of conventional nuclear warheads. Likely millions of warheads. And that's the minimum cost. It will undoubtedly require more energy. And energy is effectively a strategic resource. Without it nothing is possible. A less energetic civilization could still win against a more energetic civilization provided clever strategies and tactics, but that can only be stretched so far. Antimatter production is difficult, not just in terms of energy cost but also in infrastructure cost. It requires large installations and with it large radiators. Not to mention expensive and complex equipment to handle the large amounts of energy. And then there's storing it. The antimatter production facilities would make an easy target, meaning that the faction that uses antimatter would need to devote even more resources to defending those resources. Antimatter is a trap - any civ that tries to use will regret it. All the weaker side has to do is destroy those missiles. And there won't be a lot of them - they're so expensive. For every amat missile the enemy builds the other side can produce dozens, hundreds, possibly thousands of warships or even more. It isn't just more firepower. Even if every amat warhead takes out a few hundred enemy ships - it will still not be enough. A missile with 1 tonne of amat will be worth hundreds of thousands of warships in energy terms. Possibly millions. Using antimatter is a death sentence - for the side that uses antimatter. It's the largest waste of resources possible in a technological conflict. The opportunity cost is too great. One warhead that might take out a few hundred or even a thousand enemy ships isn't worth the hundreds of thousands or even millions of ships that could be built instead. The combat might look like a few thousand amat missiles vs millions or billions of warships. With that many warships they likely have enough firepower collectively to destroy most of the enemy missiles before they can get close. It wouldn't be hard - they just have to cause the amat to lose containment and the missile will destroy itself. And that's before taking into account more realistic efficiencies for antimatter production. A fairly optimistic number is 10 thousand - that is it takes 10 thousand times as much energy as mass-energy. This would only make this relationship worse. Instead of being worth millions of ships a single amat bomb with 1 tonne of amat would be worth billions of ships in energy cost. No sane civilization will use antimatter as a weapon. The energy cost is so immense that any sane civ will have better things to do with their time and energy. There are millions of better things to do with that energy. And many better uses for that antimatter as well.

Problem with antimatter is getting it to fully annihilate. You’re not likely to get the full ton to annihilate. And considering how containment works you might still get better energy yields from thermonuclear bombs. Though if you can use antimatter as a primary then you might get an interesting design. The best weapons will probably be a mix of guns, lasers, particle beams, and nuclear warheads. Casaba Howitzers might be a useful weapon, same with “SNAKs” - kinetic weapons propelled by nukes. But antimatter takes so much energy and effort that you could build more yield in nuclear bombs for every antimatter bomb built. What this means is that whichever faction is using antimatter will start losing as soon as the other faction uses conventional nuclear technology. Because they can bring more firepower.

Oxygen is really common, so you only really need one oxidizer. To give you an idea of how common it is, it represents the plurality of the elemental composition of the lunar surface and is in every water molecule in the solar system. I think you can justify the use of one oxidizer: liquid oxygen. As for fuels - a wider array could be more interesting. Liquid hydrogen, methane, and kerosene all fill different performance niches. But then again it may be possible to "gear down" a hydrolox rocket using water to those performance regimes, so really they're not necessary. Essentially injecting water into the propellant stream which alters its thermodynamic properties and reduces the kinetic energy per molecule. Though such a system would also require a water tank, but that shouldn't be a show stopper. You could add alternative propellants for NTRs and maybe even alternate NTR designs such as the DUMBO concept. But then again the same "gearing" concept could be used in the form of LANTR.

Huh? Looks like a Lego Saturn V or something. But it doesn’t mention Lego at all from what I saw.

I can see where this is going... If I responded as I should respond I’d probably get in trouble. But I’ll try to respond. Unions. A pretty big topic. Unions have been deliberately weakened over time - they’re just less capable of providing protection than they were in the past. The reasons for this are political by their very nature, so I won’t get into them. But this means that being in a union today will you give you less protection than in the past. Ultimately it’s up to you, but there may be some benefits to joining regardless. If this is your career (or the same field as your career) I would recommend joining. If it’s just a job that you don’t plan on really staying at for too long then there’s probably not much point. @TheSaint That’s justification for disliking that particular union and/or its leadership. But not disliking unions in general. It’s been established that unionized workers earn more in total compensation, have more paid leave, lower healthcare deductibles, better pension plans, and so on. Certainly impressive if you ask me. Any institution has its flaws and corruption though. But don’t mistake a single example for a large scale trend. Unions are generally a positive thing for workers, and were even more so many, many decades ago.

Oh yeah certainly. But if we're at the point where we can disassemble Mars in reasonable time frames then we can move planets in reasonable time frames as well. This is because the total energy is similar. And if the instability gives us millions of years until it devolves into chaos... well, we'll be in an even better situation then. Or extinct. Either way it's not that big of a deal.