SOXBLOX

Hmm. I would say that the categories "pseudo-science" , "technobabble tech", and "bad science" should all be the same category. They are all not possible IRL. Perhaps the categories "handwavium", for where math and physics don't even apply, " unobtanium" for when math and physics can calculate properties, but it doesn't work IRL, "current tech" for chemical rockets, and "tech likely possible in future with significant advances in matsci" for futuristic stuff like gas core nuclear, etc. I do still object to most of your categories, but the part of my quote on bad science was made on a different topic. Also, I objected not because I thought the bias was bad, but because someone wanted to the numbers in the poll to back up a position without noting the slant. Also, if you don't object to a rename which retains the engine's same properties, why will you not accept it being called metastable metallic hydrogen? Is "explodium" better than mmH? If so, how?

A flying carpet! But really, it is a pretty good idea. Tension members are generally less massive than structural components designed for compression loads. Have you checked if 1 mm alloy wire can handle the currents required? It might throw a wrench into your mass budget if you need more cable. I'm not sure what the ion thrusters help with, though. If you need RCS, maybe just use hydrazine instead? The only problem is that under thrust, the hammock will fold up as it tugs the craft together. Maybe use one VASIMR module and hang two carpet panels from arms on the side? maybe you can rotate the module to get the panels to the correct orientation?

Well...they're not really spacesuits, since they don't do EVA. (I don't think so, anyways.) They're pressure suits, designed to keep the astronaut alive in the event of loss of pressure, until an abort is completed or the leak is fixed. For a total failure of the spacecraft, you are right, they'd do nothing to save the cosmo/astronauts, but for something more benign, they would save lives.

Of course you need radiators! You misunderstood me. Your radiators do not need shielding from comets because there are not enough comets to fill the Oort cloud to the densities which make a hit remotely probable. Since you are ignoring this fact (not "sticking with known science"), I was handwaving the issue and asking how you want to "solve" it. Are you saying moving waste heat to an alternate dimension is your solution? Cool, but Lord Kelvin is glaring at you now.

Going bottom to top: Fun is not quantitative. It is an opinion. I may not feel the same way. SPOILER ALERT: I don't. Neither do endless RTG's, magic reaction wheels, or ultradense, physics-defying stars. As I pointed out, you can ignore the flavor text at your leisure. Or just don't use the engine. I assume you refer to Kerik's poll on tech to be included in the game? Those questions were biased. Not a bad thing, but realistically, who here will vote for "aether screws"? "Bad science" is a shortcut around debate; it implies that anyone voting for "bad science" in a game is unscientific IRL. This is ridiculous, of course.

Ok, then. You can ignore the numbers if you want. As long as you don't hit Star Wars levels of nonsense, I'm happy. So, how do you plan to solve your contrived problem of massive, unshielded radiators for your ludicrously OP flashlight rocket? (In the UK, this translates to "torch drive". Heh.)

1: I would not exist inside of the space-time of my universe, I would view it from the outside, and as such, I would not experience time. This would solve the issue of free will combined with omniscience. 2: I would give my creatures rules to follow which would improve their lives if they followed them. They would naturally have the option of following these rules perfectly. 3: As it is highly probable they would not follow them, I would devise a solution to remove them from their self-induced misery. Silly thing: There would be trees 80 feet in diameter, with suitably impressive heights as well. Just 'cause.

Ahem.

And you want a photonic rocket why?

Perfect realism is both impossible and unnecessary in KSP 2. There is really no reason for objecting to mH in the game, while ignoring such defects as patched conics, infinite RTG power, the entire aerodynamics model, etc. Additionally, I count one, maybe two or three, people here who object to its inclusion. Many more of us do want it, or are fine tolerating it, the same way we tolerate Kerbol having the size of a red dwarf and the luminosity and spectrum of a G-type star. I am fine with metastable metallic hydrogen being in the game. I do not want it renamed, dropped, or nerfed, and I will strongly object to any tampering with its position in the game. Remember, for the purposes of those who want "realism" or "scientific accuracy" , the engine is a device with a high ISp and thrust, nothing more. You can ignore the flavor text where you want. If you don't want to use the engine, don't. Ignore it. Whining about it doesn't help anyone.

We will assume that the Oort Cloud extends from 2000 to 200 000 A.U. Next, that it is populated by 3 trillion objects capable of wrecking your ship, evenly distributed in the Cloud. Next, your ship is a cylinder with a radius of 15 m, and flies in a straight line. Running the numbers, I found that there are ~0.000 000 000 000 000 536 objects in your path. The chances of a collision are miniscule. You can just calculate the gamma factor for a instantaneous speed relative to an inertial observer. Much easier.

Binoculars, absolutely. It would probably look like a satellite does in the night sky, just a moving star.

So do most critters. I suspect humans do, too, just none of us want to put it to the test.

The Oort cloud is a torus or disc which gradually broadens out into a sphere at its greatest distance. Our models say that the spherical portion is very sparse; it's right on the edge of where the solar gravity has more influence than the galactic tides, so it loses comets frequently. The disc replenishes it over time, but it takes a very long time for these objects to complete even one orbit.

I'd say that to cram any "insert earth animal here" aliens into SF, one has to make so many assumptions that debate over its realism becomes pointless. You obviously have a vision; if you want to do this, just insert them into your world and be done; to heck with the consequences. (Don't give me stuff about you being concerned with the realism of it, please?) Just my thoughts. Cool ideas, though.

Outbound trip is two and a half years with a 1g brachistochrone, ~3 years Earth time. Don't bother with antimatter beams, at torchship speeds, these beams (assuming you fire forwards) have your velocity relative to the target + the rapidity imparted to the beam. In other words, the rest mass of the particles becomes irrelevant.

We have how much information on this? Probably somewhere around ten sentences between the PC Gamer article and the dev updates. Definitely too early to assert that it has been completely replaced. Also, money is a medium of exchange. Typically, you exchange it for resources. If KSP 2 has resources, then it essentially has multiple types of money. I wouldn't worry; the devs know exactly what they're doing.

I wouldn't put it past him.

Exactly.

Bingo! Either this or find an earth-like world sin flora and fauna. Of course, interesting cases arise if the alien viruses have the opposite chirality as earth lifeforms...

These look fantastic! I can't wait to go watch these! Can you share any numbers on how many tutorials you'll put in the finished product? I love the style; it feels perfect, very Kerbal!

Alright. Let's outlaw Star Wars. It's a danger to humanity!!! Joking aside, I am fine with any technology which behaves in a manner consistent with physics, regardless of materials science or whatever. Take, for example, mH. It probably doesn't exist, but we can handwave that and still enjoy using it in the Kerbal universe. Also, heat radiators for the Kerbstein Drive. Those will be a little bit unobtanium, but the principle is still there. Things like that, sure, but nothing that ignores physics.

Hmm. I will totally still use mH engines even if they are, at some point in the future, shown to be physically impossible.

Ship to ship probably won't even occur; war would be lobbing interplanetary torch missiles and waiting.

CLASSIFIED* But seriously, with a liquid fuelled missile, you can just shut down the engine. However, with solids (Minuteman, Peacekeeper, GBSD, etc.) you have to fine tune the trajectory. You could probably do away with any third stage, as well. *** Also, not a hard minimum. The missile would still be an ICBM, because though it has that range, it just isn't used in this scenario.