Less realistic parts

[mcwaffles2003]

The game seems ready to escape the planet moon model where all planets are moons to the sun as moons are moons to those planets etc. I say this as the stars of the game, I imagine, will not all be rotating around a central body (unless we're actually being given a galaxy in stock, which I doubt). So we are about to enter a game that allows interstellar travel and, with modding, possibly even intergalactic travel because who now knows how far away stars can be made.

I understand it may be too early to talk about DLC for KSP 2 but I would like to ask anyway. Would warp drives/FTL tech/wormholes be ok if it was made as a DLC? I know of this communities hesitance when it comes to tech of this sort but the distances/times we're talking about are on a whole new scale... like 10^5 times greater (alpha centauri is around 10^4 times further from the sun than pluto)

Where should the line be drawn and why?

Edited December 13, 2019 by mcwaffles2003

[Elro2k]

I would honestly love a warp drive / hyper drive to be available as a DLC. The biggest issue would most likely be balancing, since light speed travel is incredibly over powered and no one would choose anything else. Maybe for a sandbox exclusive feature?

I also think it would be pretty cool to add an Epstein-like drive to KSP. That type of technology is actually based off of real fusion drives and could theoretically exist. It isn't as dramatic of a change as a lightspeed generator but is still more powerful than a chemical rocket. 

[Kerbart]

I’d love to see some magical device, that would allow you to “grab” another vessel and then magically transfer electricity, propellant, yes even Kerbals through it. A “Collision Lateral Attachment Worktool,” so to say.

[shdwlrd]

The base game is supposed to be more thesible technology, even if its future tech.

Hand wavium technologies are good for mods or dlc. Some people will hate it, some will love it, but true realism gets boring.

 

[RealKerbal3x]

8 minutes ago, Elro2k said:

I also think it would be pretty cool to add an Epstein-like drive to KSP. That type of technology is actually based off of real fusion drives and could theoretically exist. It isn't as dramatic of a change as a lightspeed generator but is still more powerful than a chemical rocket. 

The developers have actually said that they’re adding a ‘Krepstein drive’ in the base game, which is pretty cool (Can’t exactly remember where I heard/read it...probably in one of the interview videos released soon after the announcement).

Regarding the actual topic, I would be fine with magic-tech in a DLC, as long as it was balanced correctly, as @Elro2k said.

4 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I’d love to see some magical device, that would allow you to “grab” another vessel and then magically transfer electricity, propellant, yes even Kerbals through it. A “Collision Lateral Attachment Worktool,” so to say.

You could even say that this device would be *puts on sunglasses* advanced...

Edited December 10, 2019 by RealKerbal3x

[mcwaffles2003]

I just want to say I find it exciting noone so far has tried refuting my statement:

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So we are about to enter a game that allows interstellar travel and, with modding, possibly even intergalactic travel because who now knows how far away stars can be made.

So I might not be crazy thinking we actually might see galaxies to travel in this game

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I might not be crazy thinking we actually might see galaxies to travel in this game

We know so little about KSP2 at the moment, you can't say it there won't be galaxies to explore. Odds are there won't be more than few other star systems to explore at launch. But who knows what stat theory or modders will do beyond that.

[Rejected Spawn]

I've been in strong favor of relaxing the shackles of extreme realism for a long time but everything has a limit. You basically took my limit, drag raced over it with a forklift leaving a skid mark reeking of burned rubber and flew off into the sunset on a gas giant at the edge of some other galaxy.

KSP1 "gamified" a lot of stuff but was always about "what we already proved works". KSP2 seems to be about "what the majority of the scientific community agrees SHOULD work" with some minor wriggle room. Faster Than Light travel and wormholes are so far from realistic I'm not even gonna get into that can of worms, however one thing is certain; no sane and serious scientist would call it "possible". You'd be throwing the entire concept of realism out your transfer window by letting it anywhere near the game, letting it slip in as any kind of official content in any form would make my skin crawl. Want to mod your game and turn a simulator into a nonsensical playground full of magic? Go ahead and mod that in, I sure won't be getting in your way - but don't you dare make me lose every microgram of respect for the devs for all eternity by having them defile their own creation right out of the virtual box, DLC included.

Regarding intergalactic travel I'd say the probability of that is impossible to calculate until we know more about what's going on with the engine, if you can specify an objects position down to a Kerbals neck hair you end up with pretty huge coordinate numbers to specify the objects position in relation to even a single solar system. Sure there could be some trickery involved across interstellar distances that gets around the problem but I don't think "intergalactic" will be doable because there is no need to develop such a thing. Galaxies are pretty big you know, not sure why you'd even want to go see another one when yours already has a hundred billion stars to investigate...

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, Rejected Spawn said:

Faster Than Light travel and wormholes are so far from realistic I'm not even gonna get into that can of worms, however one thing is certain; no sane and serious scientist would call it "possible".

I dont think science has matured enough to deem at least wormholes utterly impossible, improbable definitely, but saying it's completely impossible? They at least can make some sense in math and history has a way of spiting scientists deeming some things impossible

Quote

“Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.”

-Ernest Rutherford

Quote

“There is no appreciable energy available to man through atomic disintegration”

-Robert Millikan

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Warp drives are at least mathmatically possible; the primary issues are the need for negative energy/mass and the energy they require. But it's nothing a antimatter reactor or similar couldn't handle; wormholes are predicted by relativity and that seems to have held up to every test in the last few decades.

So both of those while not near-future are at least aligned with current physics, but i don't want to see anything fictional in the sense that it doesn't align with current physics or requires impossible physics.

[KSK]

Warp drive and metallic hydrogen. Both with some level of theoretical underpinning, both with engineering requirements likely to be make them impossible in practice. 

So why not both?

[kerbiloid]

22 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I’d love to see some magical device, that would allow you to “grab” another vessel and then magically transfer electricity, propellant, yes even Kerbals through it

+1

Spoiler

 

47 minutes ago, KSK said:

Warp drive and metallic hydrogen. Both with some level of theoretical underpinning, both with engineering requirements likely to be make them impossible in practice. 

So why not both?

Also +1. A pusher plate they already have.

Edited December 11, 2019 by kerbiloid

[dave1904]

22 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I dont think science has matured enough to deem at least wormholes utterly impossible, improbable definitely, but saying it's completely impossible? They at least can make some sense in math and history has a way of spiting scientists deeming some things impossible

-Ernest Rutherford

-Robert Millikan

You could use that argument for every nonsensical scientific proposal. 

Edit: I shouldn't say nonsensical because wormholes are not nonsensical. I was just talking about the argument  

Edited December 11, 2019 by dave1904

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

You could use that argument for every nonsensical scientific proposal. 

doesn't make it incorrect, just means it applies universally

[Klapaucius]

12 hours ago, dave1904 said:

You could use that argument for every nonsensical scientific proposal. 

Edit: I shouldn't say nonsensical because wormholes are not nonsensical. I was just talking about the argument  

I have no interest in a fully speculative KSP; it completely defeats the purpose of the game for me.

For me, it is what is plausibly doable in the near future versus what is, at this time, absolute and pure speculation.  I fully believe that we really do not have any idea what is possible, but we do have some idea of what is possibly doable in the next few hundred years.  Yes of course, some big technological leap could happen, but I imagine that if it does, it will not be anything we predicted.  And when it does, it will be time for KSP 3 anyway.

There are other games out there that allow you to build those types of spacecraft--and there is nothing wrong with that--but that is not the KSP vibe that keeps me interested.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, KSK said:

Warp drive and metallic hydrogen. Both with some level of theoretical underpinning, both with engineering requirements likely to be make them impossible in practice. 

So why not both?

Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the metallic hydrogen engines comparable in performance to some designs of NERVAs?

If that's the case then it's just a matter of game design, it's confirmed you have to make your advanced fuels through colony advancements probably Metallic Hydrogen is better for the gameplay context.

The same can't be said about the Warp Drive that has performances like nothing else currently theorized or planned.

 

[Dirkidirk]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

The same can't be said about the Warp Drive that has performances like nothing else currently theorized or planned.

 

The thing would also need a bunch of exotic matter (which have to would be produced by a bunch of particle accelerators) and energy, and if you go at superluminal speeds, a material that can survive temperatures of 10^32 kelvin. It would also be unstable. (unless you are not talking about the alcubierre drive).

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the metallic hydrogen engines comparable in performance to some designs of NERVAs?

If that's the case then it's just a matter of game design, it's confirmed you have to make your advanced fuels through colony advancements probably Metallic Hydrogen is better for the gameplay context.

The same can't be said about the Warp Drive that has performances like nothing else currently theorized or planned.

 

Not a clue, although that would seem to make them fairly pointless.

But yeah, this becomes a question of game design. Appealing to realism or plausibility is slightly absurd given the amount of sci-fi technology confirmed to be in the game already.

To be honest though, I’m not particularly excited about interstellar travel in KSP2. To my mind it just rubs your nose in the fact that we’re playing in a pocket sized universe with various aspects of it fudged for gameplay reasons.

Rocket powered (powered by any energy source you care to mention, up to and including antimatter) interstellar travel is a ridiculous idea - at least it is for crewed travel in any sort of sensible game-friendly timespan. For a bit of insight into quite how ridiculous, take a look at the Project Daedalus Wikipedia page.

It could still make for an entertaining game but it throws KSP1’s vibe of simplified but more or less realistic spaceflight straight out of the window.

12 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

The thing would also need a bunch of exotic matter (which have to would be produced by a bunch of particle accelerators) and energy, and if you go at superluminal speeds, a material that can survive temperatures of 10^32 kelvin. It would also be unstable. (unless you are not talking about the alcubierre drive).

So a material that exists on paper only, that we have no idea how to practically manufacture and would need to possess a currently theoretical property to be used in spacecraft propulsion?

Remind me - are we talking about exotic matter or metastable metallic hydrogen here?

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Not a clue, although that would seem to make them fairly pointless.

I think it depends on what assumptions you make for both types of drives.  Regardless, Metallic Hydrogen would be safer to handle and operate, as there's no pesky radiation to deal with.  (Admittedly only 'safer' in that nitroglycerin is safer than a nuclear bomb: Both will explode and kill you if make a wrong move, but the bomb will also kill you if you hang around to long.  And even that comparison is bad, since the nuclear bomb has the bigger explosion...)

1 hour ago, KSK said:

So a material that exists on paper only, that we have no idea how to practically manufacture and would need to possess a currently theoretical property to be used in spacecraft propulsion?

Remind me - are we talking about exotic matter or metastable metallic hydrogen here?

Ah, but for metallic hydrogen we at least know it *can* exist (whether or not it's metastable is up for debate, with it leaning towards 'not'), and what it would take to manufacture it - even if we don't have a way to do so at commercial volumes, it's barely possible within a dedicated lab.

Exotic matter we're not even really sure exists - the only real evidence we have for it is that the numbers add up correctly in the theories.  Which could be just because math allows you to put in nonsense numbers and get a result, and that our theories are only descriptive of the real world.

So, likely neither one really works - but even if metallic hydrogen *isn't* metastable you could make a metallic hydrogen drive.  The mass of the fuel tanks would make it a stupid idea as all your dV would be spent moving the pressure vessels, but it could be done.  Warp drive...  We've no evidence that it exists outside of numbers on paper.

[KerikBalm]

We need to define what we mean by "fictional technology".

Do we mean a technology that operates on solid scientific principles, with the details not worked out, and the fiction is that they have been solved (such as ICF fusion drives, or just fusion drives), or do we mean pure fiction down to fictional science too. Ok... then we can havea 6th elemental force reactionless drive: Isp: infinite, TWR: 5:1, and a "9th ray energy generator": produces energy, no input, free energy machine (ok, RTGs are that in KSP already :p)

On 12/10/2019 at 10:00 PM, Kerbart said:

I’d love to see some magical device, that would allow you to “grab” another vessel and then magically transfer electricity, propellant, yes even Kerbals through it. A “Collision Lateral Attachment Worktool,” so to say.

Well, it doesn't break a law of physics, I'm ok with it as a gameplay abstraction, when it could really be something like a adaptor and hose set, with a arm+strap and webbing system for distributing load across a structure

21 hours ago, KSK said:

Warp drive and metallic hydrogen. Both with some level of theoretical underpinning, both with engineering requirements likely to be make them impossible in practice. 

So why not both?

I have found no theoretical underpinning to the "cesium doped" metallic hydrogen variant, that should get really high Isp (atomic rockets calculates the max Isp from metallic hydrogen, but then concludes it would melt any engine, and needs to be mixed with something to cool it down, reducing Isp and increasing thrust).

Also, there is currently no theoretical underpinning for metastable metallic hydrogen (the last theory to predict it was from the 70s, and updated theories based on updated observations no longer predict it), and the engine design simple does not work without the metastable property.

Also, FTL, if it exists, allows for time travel. This is a mess. I'd rather have time dilation be modeled. Id also rather have an antimatter rocket, which can easily get you to fractions of C that are high enough that interstellar travel to nearby neighbors doesn't take so long. If doing a hohman to plock is fine, then going at 0.05c to a nearby star 0.4 ly away (because 1/10 scale and all...) should be fine too. No need for warp drives.

[dave1904]

6 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

I have no interest in a fully speculative KSP; it completely defeats the purpose of the game for me.

For me, it is what is plausibly doable in the near future versus what is, at this time, absolute and pure speculation.  I fully believe that we really do not have any idea what is possible, but we do have some idea of what is possibly doable in the next few hundred years.  Yes of course, some big technological leap could happen, but I imagine that if it does, it will not be anything we predicted.  And when it does, it will be time for KSP 3 anyway.

There are other games out there that allow you to build those types of spacecraft--and there is nothing wrong with that--but that is not the KSP vibe that keeps me interested.

I mean the concept of wormholes. For ftl they are nonsense. The reality is that ftl is impossible anyway. Anything that will bring kerbals outside the kerbal system in a practical time is completely speculative. I would rather have other systems than none at all however. The reality is that we will most likely never leave the solar system. There is nowhere to go anyway. The more I read about space the more I'm convinced we are alone. Sure "primitive" life might exist but earth is simply an anomaly. Hopefully I'm wrong. Rocket science has not really gone anywhere since the moon landing anyway. 

[Klapaucius]

2 hours ago, dave1904 said:

The reality is that we will most likely never leave the solar system. There is nowhere to go anyway. The more I read about space the more I'm convinced we are alone. Sure "primitive" life might exist but earth is simply an anomaly. Hopefully I'm wrong. Rocket science has not really gone anywhere since the moon landing anyway. 

I have to disagree. I am certain we are not alone: the universe is just too insanely stupidly huge for us to be an anomaly.  Even if there was only one civilization in every one million galaxies, that would mean 100,000 civilizations out there in the known universe.  Considering there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy alone, I think the odds we are even alone in our own galaxy are low.  But whether we will ever be able to meet another species---I would say the odds are against that, and if we did, it might just be too alien for us to have any meaningful exchange.  

Also, it is entirely plausible to be sending probes interstellar, but it would be laser-propelled nanoprobes. 

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/100-million-for-probes-to-alpha-centauri-yes-really/

In fact, it would make sense in KSP2 from a realism standpoint to have interstellar travel begin as nanoprobes using that very laser idea. It would be a really cool game addition.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Klapaucius

[shdwlrd]

Really can't believe that people are voting never for sci-fi techs and parts. 

Mods are DLC too, so you're saying I can't have sci-fi tech in my game because you don't believe in it.

Edited December 12, 2019 by shdwlrd
Mobile...

[Klapaucius]

18 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Really can't believe that people are voting never for sci-fi techs and parts. 

Mods are DLC too, so you're saying I can't have sci-fi tech in my game because you don't believe in it.

You can do whatever you want in your game, and no one is saying folks cannot make mods. But for me, personally, I'd rather the company spend company resources developing content consistent with a plausible future scenario.   If I want more sci-fi, I can find other games for that.  I've not played it, but I think something like Space Engineers probably goes more in that direction.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Incarnation of Chaos]

6 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Really can't believe that people are voting never for sci-fi techs and parts. 

Mods are DLC too, so you're saying I can't have sci-fi tech in my game because you don't believe in it.

The reason i did is because the term itself is vague; and includes everything from plausable technologies to literally impossible ones.