Jump to content

Unpopular Opinions Thread

HCB-11

By HCB-11
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

catloaf

catloaf

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/6/2020 at 8:11 AM, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Starship Sucks

A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but now it's gone from "Elons crazy fantasy" to "Elons crazy fantasy that maybe, just maybe could happen." Anyways, it can't suck more than SLS.

Edited by catloaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Misguided Kerbal

Misguided Kerbal

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, catloaf said:

A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but now it's gone from "Elons crazy fantasy" to "Elons crazy fantasy that maybe, just maybe could happen." Anyways, it can't suck more than SLS.

True, SLS sucks more. Imagine what would happen if NASA actually pursued the NERVA, or like that in Eyes Turned Skywards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnemoe

magnemoe

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

True, SLS sucks more. Imagine what would happen if NASA actually pursued the NERVA, or like that in Eyes Turned Skywards.

Looking at the starship project I just feel like we lost half an century. Yes starting that project in 1970 you would have worse engines although the shuttle engines and the  Russian oxygen rich fuel flow are still good. 
Heat tiles would also be more challenging however just getting 20 ton fully reusable into LEO was the shuttle program goal. That one would be pretty easy with an diesel punk starship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StrandedonEarth

StrandedonEarth

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Looking at the starship project I just feel like we lost half an century. Yes starting that project in 1970 you would have worse engines although the shuttle engines and the  Russian oxygen rich fuel flow are still good. 
Heat tiles would also be more challenging however just getting 20 ton fully reusable into LEO was the shuttle program goal. That one would be pretty easy with an diesel punk starship. 

Well, the main headache there would be having the computers and sensors capable of landing F9 back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DunaManiac

DunaManiac

Posted
Posted

My Unpopular opinion?

Manned Space Travel should have continued rather than ending for the most part after 1972.

Most people thought at the time that we'd have built moon and mars bases by now.

Don't get me wrong, we are making progress to scrape our way back into space, but unless a HUGE policy change happens, then we will never get back to the moon, let alone mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Lisias

Lisias

Posted
Posted
On 7/18/2020 at 3:04 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, the main headache there would be having the computers and sensors capable of landing F9 back then.

The problem was not landing, the computers of that era could handle this. It was landing where you intent to.

They would need to move all the launch complex to a position where the ship could land on a huge dry lake after the reentry, so the lack of precision could be tolerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted
On 6/20/2020 at 11:54 AM, Snark said:

Some content has been removed.  Folks, please try to steer clear of politics, which are not allowed per forum rule 2.2.b.  This includes bashing people who come from a particular place.

Some of the content still remaining in this thread has been allowed to stand, but it's skating perilously close to the "politics" line-- take it down a notch, please.

Example of problematic content in spoiler.

  Reveal hidden contents

^ This is an example of the kind of statement that skates really close to the line.  It's not quite politics, which is why it's been allowed to stand.

However, it's the sort of statement that many fellow forum members may legitimately disagree with, for cogent reasons.  It's the type of assertion that people are going to want to respond to.  Unfortunately, many of the best-reasoned counter-arguments would, of necessity, cite actual, real-world cases (of the "country A did <thing> to country B" sort)... and as soon as someone is citing actual countries and their actions and why those are good or bad, that becomes fairly unambiguous politics.

So that's why this kind of post is problematic, though not quite rule-breaking:  it's difficult to respond to without running afoul of the rules, which means it has a high potential for derailing threads.

I'm sure the post is entirely well meant, but this sort of thing does tend to put one's fellow forum members in an awkward position... so please try to be considerate of that.  And to anyone wanting to respond to something like this:  please try to avoid citing specific political entities-- even if it's a legitimate and great example for a counterargument-- because that would, indeed, be politics.

We're sorry we have to do this, but political discussions never turn out well, thus why we have to have the rule.  If anyone has any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to reach out privately to the moderator team (bearing in mind that rule 3.3 prohibits public discussion of moderator action).

Thank you for your understanding.

Was that your unpopular opinion ( ;D) ? 

Okay - here's mine: combat games that turn off Friendly Fire are bad.  The solution to griefers is not to dumb the game down - but to remove those players 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
catloaf

catloaf

Posted
Posted (edited)

The ksp2 devs should not have kept the Kerbol system as it is. Ksp2 is a new game, and I want a fresh system. I think that the ksp2 devs kept it the same because nostalgic people would have been angered by its removal, but I'm just not a fan of the Kerbol system (unrealistically colored planets and oversized moons are the main reason.) It's especially ugly when compared to planet packs like gpp Beyond home, gep, and opm. They could have kept nostalgics happy and made the system fresh by either adding an equivalent to opm or having an option to start in another star system (perhaps in Puf) or both, the second option however is a real possibility, but only if there is a habitable world in a system with enough planets to go interstellar.

Edited by catloaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...