Why I don't want interstellar travel

[SolarAdmiral]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Barring Metallic Hydrogen, all other technologies have basis. Fusion drives are based off fusion reactors, which there are a several dozen running today.

Don't forget the Project Orion Drive, which had a functioning demonstration prototype in the 50s able to lift off under earth gravity even.

Edited December 12, 2022 by SolarAdmiral

[tstein]

22 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

I would like something new with my sequel, normally this is what comes with sequels to games (except maybe for the call of duty franchise), but I've never seen it where a sequel has less content than the game before it. I remember Sim City which didn't quite bring the same level of depth, and caused many scandals, but still it added curved roads, 3D graphics and a few other things. The initial release of KSP 2 adds no new mechanics, and removes many from the game before it. There is only the vague promise of future updates that will potentially add back in what was already in KSP 1, along with a whole lot of other things that would better fit any old sci-fi game than a game grounded in real world science. Interstellar flight is the biggest one of these, since humans will likely not be capable of this for a very long time. This isn't even near future for us, we haven't even begun to experiment with it. It doesn't fit the theme of KSP, and never will, but they added it in because they couldn't figure out how to add depth to this game, without forcing a playerbase who mostly hasn't gone any further than Minmus, to now travel light years away.

I have zero interest in interstellar flight, or interstellar engines, or anything else that is really so futuristic that it's still science fiction, in a game which became my favorite because it kept things grounded in reality and current levels of technology. KSP 2 is completely disconnected from the game before it, it has completely different goals and I'm disappointed that the developers haven't even attempted to continue this focus on realism that made this game stand out from all the others.

I really think  you must stop for a secodn  and check  if you see KSP as that because you decided it is and is painting it in your mind to force that result  or you   really really think KSP  is  completely disconnected with KSP 1.

 

Notice that  the vast majority of people do not see KSP 2 as being disconnected at all with KSP 1, just extending further at the "endgame".  Sometimes the majority of people are wrong, but   usually  if you are  seeign something that  basically no one sees, it might be good to get glasses (i.e  calmly revisit your asserted  convictions )

21 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

[snip]

That's funny, the first thing I did yesterday was build something in space that'd rotate quickly and fling payloads to higher orbits. Each time it spins up and the payload's docking port joint starts flexing, it crashes consistently. Every single time it reaches a decent speed. I've never seen a game before that crashed within the first hour I started playing it as was intended. If I can't do engineering challenges in an engineering game, what am I playing for?

Well I do not think KSP was designed to trebuchet things into orbit. That is akin to epople that  create a workign touring machine in minecraft.. ok.. it can work, but  it was not MADE to do these stuff.

[Gargamel]

Hey guess what?   Again we had to lock a thread because people can’t play nice.   

[Vanamonde]

Thread re-opened with some overly personal remarks removed. You are free to disagree with each other but please avoid telling others what their motivations are and accusing each other of lying. Discuss the subject and not the other people in the discussion, please. 

[Drakenred65]

9 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Don't forget the Project Orion Drive, which had a functioning demonstration prototype in the 50s able to lift off under earth gravity even.

One of the nuclear weapon  tests supposedly verified the concept of its Tungsten plasma pusher,  but in a weapon form, originally with the Casaba howitzer project, and later with the nuclear pulse laser. The Orion prototype used conventional explosives 

Edited December 13, 2022 by [email protected]
Added link to you tube

[obney kerman]

11 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

I would like something new with my sequel, normally this is what comes with sequels to games

11 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

I have zero interest in interstellar flight, or interstellar engines, or anything else that is really so futuristic that it's still science fiction

I mean, by your own admission they are in fact adding new things to the game. They're just not the new things you want. And interstellar aside, colonies, new science system, multiplayer, new technology, new textures, new mechanics - I think KSP2 has plenty of substance already, even if early access means it might take a while to get all of it. (And KSP is already kind of science fiction - we have magic '70s nuclear engines, impossibly high thrust ion drives, and the ability to travel interplanetary which is really already science fiction even if you use scientifically proven rockets to get there.)

[regex]

11 hours ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Oh, come on, as if metallic hydrogen engines are anything but a theory at the moment.

The hilarious thing about metallic hydrogen engines is they only really offer a theoretical ISP of 1700s and that will be significantly reduced if water is used as a dilutant/coolant mass to bring the temperatures down. All that work to reduce hydrogen to a metallic state, store it, and then design an engine that can handle the heat, for less than 1700s.

1 hour ago, obney kerman said:

we have magic '70s nuclear engines

Pewee actually ran (in atmosphere) and offered much better performance than KSP1's LV-N (around 940s). Look up Project NERVA sometime.

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, regex said:

The hilarious thing about metallic hydrogen engines is they only really offer a theoretical ISP of 1700s and that will be significantly reduced if water is used as a dilutant/coolant mass to bring the temperatures down. All that work to reduce hydrogen to a metallic state, store it, and then design an engine that can handle the heat, for less than 1700s.

I mean, that's still up to 4 to 5 times the isp of the best engine we have right now, the RL-10.

[Pthigrivi]

Man be nice yall. Its not crazy to ask questions about pacing in a game this huge. 

[regex]

23 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I mean, that's still up to 4 to 5 times the isp of the best engine we have right now, the RL-10.

Uh, sure, yeah. Until you realize that the material sciences you learned to handle 6000K temperatures and the ability to create metallic hydrogen in quantity kind of imply you can create much more efficient engines, like plasma pinch fusion or something.

And yes, they will remain relevant if you have excellent heat dispersion. I just find the idea of a metallic hydrogen engine to be far less game-breaking than some people think it will be.

Edited December 13, 2022 by regex

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Uh, sure, yeah. Until you realize that the material sciences you learned to handle 6000K temperatures and the ability to create metallic hydrogen in quantity kind of imply you can create much more efficient engines, like plasma pinch fusion or something.

True. The Daedalus Engine will probably have 100s of 1000s of ISP. Fusion drives will probably have 10s of 1000s.

[Strawberry]

Im guessing that metallic hydrogen engines will be more compact and have much higher thrusts, while fusion engines will be large and low thrust. For as far as engine design has come, its hard for engines to beat chemical rockets for taking off of planets, and metallic hydrogen offers an engine that can do that. My hope with how the devs take progression is that the advanced engines generally require lots of industrial development, so they serve as victory laps once youve set up a successful string of colonies, so you still end up using your more primitive engines due to higher availability and lower costs.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Strawberry

[Drakenred65]

I think we’re missing the bigger picture.

 

namely can we strap more boosters to it?

 

seriously we’re getting Boom Boom, and that’s actually one of the SAFER nuclear powered drive ideas we have come up with.  Basicaly one of my criteria for anything I’d, is it Kerbal enough.

 

Boom-boom?, Kerbal.

 

Metalic Hydrogen? Metal Kerbal.

[Guest]

It took a while to search for this, I didn't think I'd have an use for it again.

 

I'm going to point out that any game that depicts anything more advanced than a lunar landing is going to have a certain amount of speculative tech in it, and this game aims, even before colonies and interstellar travel, at manned interplanetary travel.

Like it or not that's part of the intended gameplay so it's only natural to have some speculative tech in that field.

[MarcAbaddon]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

It took a while to search for this, I didn't think I'd have an use for it again.

 

I'm going to point out that any game that depicts anything more advanced than a lunar landing is going to have a certain amount of speculative tech in it, and this game aims, even before colonies and interstellar travel, at manned interplanetary travel.

Like it or not that's part of the intended gameplay so it's only natural to have some speculative tech in that field.

That's true when going for interstellar travel, and I am fine with it myself. But it's still true that the new engines intended for interstellar travel will push KSP a lot further into the speculative part than was the case for KSP 1 and I can respect that some people don't like it. 

I don't even think KSP 1 was that speculative - the reason you could do things we have trouble with in RL is mainly the smaller scale and not simulating things like part reliability or life support requirements plus in some cases unrealistic performances as with ion engines and reaction wheels. The engines, tanks and power systems are within the current envelope and similar to existing engines, excepting NERVs and RAPIER which at least have proof of concept analogues. 

All those new KSP 2 engines are based on some sort of theoretical consideration, so they are not completely made up, but let's face it: likely many of those concepts will turn out to not be practical or clearly inferior to another option in the real world.   

[GoldForest]

17 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

That's true when going for interstellar travel, and I am fine with it myself. But it's still true that the new engines intended for interstellar travel will push KSP a lot further into the speculative part than was the case for KSP 1 and I can respect that some people don't like it. 

I don't even think KSP 1 was that speculative - the reason you could do things we have trouble with in RL is mainly the smaller scale and not simulating things like part reliability or life support requirements plus in some cases unrealistic performances as with ion engines and reaction wheels. The engines, tanks and power systems are within the current envelope and similar to existing engines, excepting NERVs and RAPIER which at least have proof of concept analogues. 

All those new KSP 2 engines are based on some sort of theoretical consideration, so they are not completely made up, but let's face it: likely many of those concepts will turn out to not be practical or clearly inferior to another option in the real world.   

I don't think it's that speculative, considering we have the basis for the technology today. 

Fusion drives - Literally just fusion reactors that have an outlet for the fusion reaction instead of containing it inside the reactor. Fusion reactors have been around since about the 50s/60s. They weren't power generators, but instead used to create new materials, but power generating fusion reactors are coming online in the next few years. In the near future, which is about 100 to 200 years, I'm sure someone will put a fusion drive on a space ship.

Inertial confinement drive - Laser fusion reactors exist and have been tested for years now. The one in Germany (I think it's Germany) has fired several times and has proven it can create fusion. It wouldn't be hard to scale it up and allow the energy to propel a craft like Daedalus. 

Z-Pinch - I'll admit, I don't know anything about this, but from what little I've looked at, it seems to me that it's just redirecting the plasma from a fusion reactor into a narrow beam, which we've done already, though not with fusion plasma, but with hydrogen plasma. Scaling it up is just a matter of time and materials it seems to me.

So, all these concepts have concepts that have been proven. I will admit, taking one technology and turning it into another is difficult and completely not the same, but with a little work, I'm sure all of these concepts could be produced, and would be practical. At least, more practical than other forms of travel, such as warp drives or colony ships or deep freeze ships. I think a ship using an inertial confinement fusion drive that will get us to Alpha Centauri in 5 to 10 years is a lot more practical than a ship that uses chemical engines that will get there in 100+ years. And I don't see that becoming inferior, not unless someone can make a warp capable ship. 

[tstein]

54 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

All those new KSP 2 engines are based on some sort of theoretical consideration, so they are not completely made up, but let's face it: likely many of those concepts will turn out to not be practical or clearly inferior to another option in the real world.   

But that is  KSP in a nutshell. KSP  is engineering with seasoning of  unrealistic optimism . The unrealistic strength of struts, the infinitely magical  reaction wheels, the portable hole where kerbals store their food, the infinite stupidity of a kerbal accepting to travel in an external seat between kerbin and Duna,  faster than light communication,  engines can that be pushed from 0% to 100% and back in 1/10th of a second and nothing bad happens.

 

A bit of wishful thinking on an Orion engine or a Metallic Hydrogen one is just a bit more of salt in the ocean... it changes nothing the taste..

[Luriss]

22 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

1, along with a whole lot of other things that would better fit any old sci-fi game than a game grounded in real world science. Interstellar flight is the biggest one of these, since humans will likely not be capable of this for a very long time. This isn't even near future for us, we haven't even begun to experiment with it. It doesn't fit the theme of KSP, and never will, but they added it in because they couldn't figure out how to add depth to this game, without forcing a playerbase who mostly hasn't gone any further than Minmus, to now travel light years away.

What else were they meant to do? If they were to stay within the bounds of near future technology you'd at absolute most be able to plonk an inflatable colony on Duna; in other words, you be stuck remaking KSP 1 with little to no new features.

Besides, what's the harm in interstellar travel and more far future technologies? You're going to be getting all the KSP 1 features (eventually, probably) anyway so it's not like you're being forced to play with the interstellar features. If you really want to play only with current-ish technologies you can do that. The only real downside is that specific aspect of the game won't be as fleshed out as you might like.

And to be honest, most people will be in a similar camp. I'd personally love to see in depth colony management, very harsh and unforgiving life support, part failures, and megastructures, but I know that none of that will be in the vanilla game and that's fine. I know I'm not going to like all of the devs decisions and choices but that's just how it is, at the very least we'll have mods that can add features and tweak things to each of our own individual preferences.

[Vl3d]

I've expressed my opinion on the subject in the past. KSP is not 1 game, it's 5 in 1:

A: Interstellar

B: Realism

C: Warfare

D: Roleplay

E: Grand strategy / city builder

The OP likes game B. Each flavor has it's followers. I want all of them to flourish with the addition of multiplayer.

And I agree that the stock game has progression and balance issues. I started playing a 60% Science stock save and in 2 hours have unlocked almost all the tech tree and have too many parts to know what to do with. A slower progression encourages creativity and allows you to learn the parts and the mechanics. But "career mode" is not the best way to store things down. Adventure, learning, discovery - that's the best payoff and motivation. That's why the KSP2 celestial bodies should be dense with anomalies and vistas, to repay curiosity either you stay on Kerbin or leave. KSP1 is nice for physics simulation and lego gameplay, that was the dev focus. But the WHY is missing.

PS: I love Simplex Kerbalism features! Useful mini-game science, testing, redundancy, life support - all important. Have them in stock as difficult settings and have multiplayer servers with different levels of realism / difficulty. Play / join the one you prefer.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Vl3d

[The Aziz]

10 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

C: Warfare

[Royalswissarmyknife]

17 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

C: Warfare

[zeekzeek22]

I feel like this is one of those issues where people have feelings about what the game's default settings are, while what they want is in the settings.  I've known a lot of folks who didn't want to play a sequel because they added some quality-of-life thing that makes the game comparatively easier, but there is literally a menu option to turn it off. Heck, I have felt that urge, but then I just went into the settings, set it how I liked it, and enjoyed the experience.  Still "stock". Maybe there's a difficulty slider in the menus that impacts Career Mode tech tree unlock cost, or planet gravity. Honestly I think most hardcore players' annoyance will be solved by just turning off all tutorials lol.

[GoldForest]

49 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I've expressed my opinion on the subject in the past. KSP is not 1 game, it's 5 in 1:

A: Interstellar

B: Realism

C: Warfare

D: Roleplay

E: Grand strategy / city builder

KSP 2 is 1 game with multiple aspects.

C: KSP has never had Warfare and never will. Mods do not make a game. Mods add to a game. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Mods do not make a game. Mods add to a game. 

If people understood this this thread wouldn't be here.

[Davi SDF]

I myself am someone who adds dificulty to the game (Like Life Support, a very simple part failure simulation and JNSQ for more realistic part performance), but i recognize that this is what I like. 

I definetly understand the frustration on realistic spaceflight and KSP 1 being easy (not easy to learn,  but once you do, it's relatively easy to play) is a good thing. I bet that most people play it to create ginourmous rockets and land on other planets or whatnot, and that's fine. It's ok to like KSP for being simple.

Modding will still be in the game, in fact it's likely to be improved in KSP 2, and i'm not only looking foward for the awesomeness that KSP 2 can be, but also what I can add to it through   m o d s.