SOXBLOX

Actually, it is. I already considered all your points before posting. These are factors the employee would consider. The employee would rather have his job and deal with bad employers than leave. Additionally, he/she didn't have to go into game design at all, especially if it's such a rough industry. This profession is a personal choice. And even if they have longer hours or their job isn't perfectly stable, there is virtually no cause to complain. 500 years ago, people broke their backs digging potatoes food out of fields, wore rags infested with fleas, lived in a mud hut, and had to feed more children on a tiny income. They had no other option; there were few ways to move to another job. Most others were worse. Also, consider that many people still have a life like this; America and the rest of the world are radically different. Maybe we should consider the "ethicality" of these people's conditions, rather than game designers in 21st century America who have freedoms heretofore unheard of in human history. Not being political or suggesting you aren't concerned with these other people, just pointing out that this is a very insignificant issue.

Well, those developers don't have to work for those studios. That 's how the market works. Trade your labor for their money. Regardless, I don't think "stress" or damage to "mental health" is an issue with KSP 2. The devs seem to be fans of the game, just like us, and they look like they're genuinely enjoying making the sequel. If they are being mistreated by their employers, they can leave. If they choose to stay, then they are doing so because they would rather keep working, even with the maltreatment, than leave.

So I was looking at the trailer, and suddenly I wondered what it would look like to fly through the ring systems we see. Are they going to be just "dust", only a cosmetic feature with no effect on spaceflight, or will we see objects in them like small asteroids? What other possibilities are there? If there are particles and asteroids in the grasp of the game's physics, I want my Ice Trawler Canterbury!

Pardon, but is it any of your business whether the game is developed ethically or not? And why is a game which features DRM software unethical? And the studio is under absolutely no obligation to release any information to us. You seem to think that the publisher would be happy to work their developers to death, but that would be a suicidal business move; only the most desperate people would ever work for them after that.

Well, as cool as it sounds, uranium fusion would actually consume more energy than it would release. But using it to make superheavy elements? Heck yeah!!!

I think the target didn't go critical, since it's *hard* to circumvent the critical mass requirement. So the laser caused a reaction, it just wasn't a chain reaction. This makes sense, as it was driven by Bremsstralung from scattered electrons, which lose energy and can't be recycled. Of course, it didn't go critical (I don't think) so it didn't release anywhere near enough energy (I don't think) to "break even". It seems you have to use either compression to lower the critical mass or make up for lost neutrons by bombarding the substance with extra neutrons, bringing us back to the neutron beam problem. Another method would be to put neutron reflectors, like beryllium or tungsten carbide, around it. However, this only works down to a point; after that, it can't bring the fuel critical. Of course, if we're thinking about using compression to 4 kg/cm^3, then it might be time to worry about uranium fusion instead of fission.

Yep, I just realized that after I posted. Grabbing some numbers off Wikipedia, I did some math to find the density required to bring a 1 g sphere of pure U235 to criticality. Here goes... First of all, critical mass and the square of the density are inversely proportional. We need the proportionality constant between these values. (Remember, inverse proportionality says that a × b = k where k is the constant.) So room temp. density x critical mass in a sphere at room temp. is k =((19.1 g/cm^3)^2) × 52000 g k = 18 970 120 g^2/cm^3 Now we can set the critical mass equal to one gram and determine the square of the requisite density. k= 18 970 120 = p^2 × 1 g and solving for p... the required density is ~4355 g/cm^3 . We can then go on to calculate, using the bulk modulus, the force required to compress the U235 to this density. Through more calculations and modeling, we can find the compression generated by ablation from arbitrarily large laser banks, to find the laser energy needed to compress this metal. Also, this is for a sample of pure U235. I would expect civilian-grade fuel to not be weapons-grade, though. The added impurity would raise the required density even higher. However, I somewhat arbitrarily chose the mass of one gram. Perhaps with smaller masses, other effects dominate? Also, I have been known to make rather dumb mistakes in algebra; please take my numbers with a grain of salt. Overall, the the compressibility of Uranium looks like it would be significantly lower than that of deuterium-tritium pellets, so I'm thinking it would be more difficult to use inertial confinement fission. I am interested in whether this method would "burn" fuel with a higher efficiency, though. *** Went and looked up the densities of fusion fuel (D-T) in ICF. Usually fuel is compressed to about 200 g/cm^3 to ignite. Remember, a whole gram of very pure U would need to be compressed to multiple kilograms per cubic cm, and smaller masses would raise this requirement.

I assume you are proposing using beams of neutrons to create burst fission in subcritical masses of fuel? There are problems with this, mainly that it's basically impossible to direct neutrons in a cohesive stream; they just go everywhere. If you're thinking lasers, as in ICF, then I have to say, I can't see this overcoming the criticality limits on chain reactions. Perhaps mass restrictions don't apply to a non-chain-reaction?

True, but I'd remind you of just what it took to sink the Yamamato. Also, what surface-surface engagements there were in WWII (mostly in the Aleutian campaigns) involved cruisers taking multiple direct hits from the main batteries of equivalent opponents. Overall, WWII ships would be more resilient. On the other hand, no modern warship will just be sitting and not defending itself with every trick in the book. With the exception of the USS Starke and such gross mismanagement, no ship in a threat zone will be vulnerable to a surprise attack, especially American ships (and others) with the Aegis ICS.

Most modern AShM types would bounce off a WWII battleship's hull. However, if it hit the superstructure, it would probably mission-kill the ship, if not outright trash it. On the other hand, a modern warship, such as an Arleigh Burke, has (apparently) very little armor, but possesses a state-of-the-art radar and combat control system, coupled to electronic countermeasures and the Phalanx CIWS. Naturally, these are rather fragile. If they aren't doing their job of decoying or intercepting inbound missiles, then they will be shredded. Overall, though, one just has to look at the Falklands War to see the effect of AShM's on a modern target. Since the Sheffield and Antelope were smaller warships built for ASW, and they were basically one-hit-killed, I'd say a Burke or Ticonderoga would take two or three hits before total destruction. An Iowa -class, or even a midsized Alaska-class, would probably last four or more hits. Of course, we could talk about the "modern" Russian Kirov and its brother the Frunze...

Here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33339/x-37b-space-planes-microwave-power-beam-experiment-is-a-way-bigger-deal-than-it-seems

As the folks above have pointed out, this would have serious ramifications on established scientific research, forcing us to throw out our working models. Generally, physics works by building on and tweaking existing explanations. Aside from that, Kerbals, obviously, could not ride in such a ship. Also, due to the supposed, alleged, hypothetical repulsion mechanism for which evidence is sparse at best, these ships could never enter orbit of any body. This makes them generally useless for gameplay, making it *unlikely* they will be implemented.

And testing a beamed solar power experiment next launch! Very interesting. Perhaps it will let us keep electric UAV's aloft for longer?

Ahem... We need it? That was the point I just made, which you failed to notice. We do NOT need Starship. We do not need to colonize Mars. We do not need to send 100 people to the moon. We won't need more space telescopes, space stations, or science-gathering things which can't launch on Vulcan or Falcon. Of course there's no government funding for Starship. Few people would even consider throwing money at this. But SpaceX did receive money from the gov, money which picked up the development costs for Falcon and theirtrash cans with toilet plumbing engines. That is what has enabled them to get to this point. I see it is pointless to try to change your minds; shall we call it quits and leave each other in peace? See y'all around, and thank you for the discussion!

[Snip] it is futile. The fact is, SpaceX is building a bridge to nowhere, and are wasting a lot of time, talent, and government support doing it. It doesn't matter how cheap your tollway is, no one's going to use it just because it's so nice. People don't pay for what they don't want. As one of you said earlier, the tech has been there for the last 60 years. No one has built this yet because no one wants it. There have been plenty of people far smarter than Musk or his engineering team, but they realized that there is not an incentive to fly this thing. Elon's real goal, of course, is to send people to Mars with this. All commercial uses are, to him, secondary (those that actually exist). [snip]

Absolutely! My thoughts are, of course, that it will flop. Great point there! Tethers are still a ways off. By the time we have them, Starship will be in an antique shop. By terrestrial, I mean suborbital hops, which is apparently what SpaceX think they can use this for. And no, packing efficiency is very important. There are only so many flights you can put on one airframe. You have to factor in the cost of the current frame's future replacement. Launching a one ton payload on SS wastes a flight. Not a way to make a profit. If Elon is worried about NG, then he'll really watch his spending. And no, I don't particularly care for SLS either. Additionally, whether any SpaceX product is cost-effective is debatable. Elon is basically a subsidiary of the federal government. They should just merge SpaceX and NASA...

I am still not convinced that by the time it is finally flying (around 2027, I expect, provided all goes reasonably well) it will not have accumulated so many development costs that it becomes as expensive as the SLS. Sure, anyone can make a pretty infographic and give cute speeches about colonizing places like Mars. Lots of people can roll sheet metal to build a shiny rocket fuel tank. The thing is, a launch vehicle like this has been possible for the last 10 years, at least. NASA is building SLS "because we should". But the fact that no one else is building a SHLV (besides maybe Bezos) tells me that wiser minds than Musk's have decided that it isn't worth it. I love the idea of orbital spaceflight, and even flights to other planets. I just don't see it happening in meaningful ways until we at least have orbital tethers. Really, the first thing to do is find an economic incentive to get people (humans, not robots) to go out there. Since there is no obvious choice for this incentive, sci-fi authors commonly invent something found in space and no where else. Winchell Chung calls it MacGuffinite. Seems to me that Musk is building a bridge to nowhere. This is also known as putting the cart before the horse, or trying to run before you can walk. As for terrestrial use, point me to a load of cargo which needs to fly at Mach 20. Then, if you do find some, please explain why anyone needs 100 tons of the stuff.

Current and future war doctrine certainly does not involve jumping to a nuclear exchange. The RQ-series and Lord knows what else we've got behind the curtain are real recon platforms. In this role, Starship would constitute a national disgrace. And really, 5 million a piece? "Eventually", he said. The B-2 Spirit could cost only 5 million if we mass-produced it. He's making so many assumptions about the future utility of his launch vehicle that it is ludicrous to the point of insanity. Military usefulness is out. Even if it were in, and you're right about the use of nukes, then it is a one-week market. Tourism is not a near-term possibility. Period. Even then, sending people on pleasure cruises is not a way to forge a sustainable space infrastructure. As for the ridiculously low costs of Starship, we haven't seen it fly, and costs anywhere near those he promises won't happen until it is being flown en-masse. So, it needs customers. Who are they, what will they do, where is their money coming from? These are questions no spaceflight plan has been able to answer with anything more than a handwave and some vacuous muttering about "new markets" and "public enthusiasm for the exploration of space". He needs a solid long-term money-making use for SS. NASA isn't a reliable customer; it changes its mind too frequently. Orbital tourism is not good enough; airlines don't fly just to show you the sights. Asteroid prospecting? Maybe. But it won't require a launch every day. In short, I think Elon ought to be pitching realistic uses for Starship. I'd say he could launch Starlink and maybe Europa Cutter with it. Maybe he could build an orbital station, though why we'd need it is a question with only a few dubious answers. Really, though, none of these satisfy the requirement for a huge, continuously buying customer base; there's no market.

No!

I am well aware of the potential for asteroid mining. That is not relevant, though. The topic of this discussion has been whether SS has a use beyond launching Starlink. I am convinced that it doesn't. However, it's ultimate goal is to colonize Mars. I believe it will fail to make enough money to survive long-term, not because it is a bad vehicle, but because no one needs it.

Taxicabs? I've gotta say, that's another bad example. People only build roads to places where there are other people, after the colonization of wherever has been completed. This is not comparable to trains, planes, or horse-drawn buggies. It is it's own unique challenge. People did make money off of building a "road" and putting "cars" on it, the American railroad network in its earliest years. Maybe SS could visit the asteroids, but there would not yet be anyone to sell the data to. They would have to wait until their product created a market. This kind of economic brute forcing just doesn't work, which is the reason SS is a solution without a problem, in my opinion. It can be cheaper than anything ever launched, bigger, or faster, but that doesn't mean people have to buy it. Since as far as we can see, there isn't a whole lot of money to be made in space, private companies won't. And I really hate to argue the point, but DARPA wants rapid launch because they are seriously concerned that in a major war enemy cruise missiles will be exploding over Kennedy SC and others. It would shred our current launch capabilities, making us incapable of maintaining a communication network and spysat system in space. Something which can fly over a location really fast with a big camera is no longer useful in the face of such tech as the RQ-170 or the fabled RQ-180. These are a lot cheaper than SS, can loiter for hours, carry weapons, and have a tiny mission turnaround time. SS is only useful during a major conflict. If the U.S. Military does its job, there won't be one of those.

Starship and regular aircraft don't compare. This is another example of someone underestimating how utterly different space is. Starship will be carrying people to completely barren, literally alien locations, where there is nothing to do until you make something to do. It does not serve the same purpose as an airliner; so comparing the two is like comparing blue and Tuesday, it does not make sense. *cackles maniacally*

Lots of raw materials? Privyet, Siberia. By the time you've set up a supply chain infrastructure in SPAAAACE! you will not be making much more money than trucking Earth rocks around. Asteroid mining also does not require the colonization of space. As for the major powers nuking each other, the balance is changing. 30 years ago, there was a research program called Star Wars by the public. The military has things so classified that it would blow your mind. Now, we have the capabilities to make the SDI a reality. We are also at least 20 years ahead of the world in this field. Even if you disregard that, the nature of any future conflict is so far removed from WWII that you cannot have any conception of it without a significant rethink of your assumptions. Most likely, a war between China and America (an example, no more) would be over in just weeks. No nukes need be exchanged. Not the forum for this topic, though. Yes, the SR 72 just proves my point. A capability no one needs. The AF isn't interested. Exactly. And you folks want to get off our big iron rock to go to a bunch of iron pebbles. Trust me, we'll go once there is a real economic incentive to go. It will be permanent and much more meaningful that way.

Ah, yeah, the asteroids. That's a whole new pile of engineering challenges. Those were markets leveraging mainly services that common people could use, whether by owning their own PC or learning how to code. I really don't see a Starship parked in front of every house, ever. An iPhone os inherently useful, combining a large number of functions which already existed. None of your points are valid, as Starship would exist in a technological vacuum. It would have no defining, lasting purpose. With your line of reasoning, we should all be flying helicopters to work. Though technically feasible, we don't do it because not enough people want it. I've gotta get to bed: it's 2:00 AM here. I've greatly enjoyed the discussion, and I'll check in later this morning.

The whole point of a rapid, unpredictable launch is to surprise the enemy and REPLACE WARTIME LOSSES. This assumes a war has started, and that it is one involving peer state competitors with ASAT capabilities. If you think the military wants to fly really fast over a target an photograph it, sorry, but we had a plane that could do that. We never designed a successor because it was not useful enough. Even if it were, a new hypersonic aircraft would be better than SS, it could be stealthed. Oh, wait, we already have recon drones that can do this sort of thing. Nevermind that entire market opportunity... As for Mars One, how many people were actually serious, or really knew what they were asking for? My guess is not many. If someone wants to pay 100k to fly a little higher, that's their choice. But really, most folks won't, and probably not those with families, as they would want to bring the kids along. If they can't bring the kids, they probably won't go. And really, it only takes on failure of a manned flight before the government slaps so many regulations on space tourism and launch vehicles that Starship becomes an anachronism. Anyhow, human-rating that steel tub will take a while, even once (if) it's built. But whatever. As long as Musk isn't wasting my tax money on this, he can do what he wants.