Technical Ben

If a "base" it would be permanent, in which case no specialist hardware needed inbuilt to the craft. You would just use a cargo delivery to give you a crain/inflated/rope drop system, OR dig a hole/build up regolith vertical, and not horizontal (use the top for solar, lower for living quarters).

The drive is not really the problem. The Fuel/size/rocket ratio is. Yeah, most of my hard sci-fi designs really play with the limits of physics, but I at least try to aim for something like a 30% fuel to mass ratio or fuel space to cargo space ratio. Then hope for fusion/metallic hydrogen. (And even then, only the "hero" ship or main focus ship is the "rule of cool" breaking of most physics, all the others would have to follow reality, to show how real space flight works IMO... teach people, don't just "tickle their ears". But most scifi, sadly even the Expanse, leave ZERO space to actually put a fuel tank. :facepalm: Yeah, aircraft have fuel in the wings, but even a Tie Fighter/Xwing has wings so thin, their fuel would need to be quantumly compressed. PS, I really should do this for my design (It's had a bit of modification since then): It's suppose to be able to take off from Mars sized planets (Earth would be too much of a "drag" and to much gravity). Though to do that, you'd need to swap at least one of the cargo bays for a fuel bay. This is the labelled version (with older "wings")@

butwhy.gif?

First attempt. Prototype. Not for production use. Test bed. Learning experience. Do we need to spell it out?

Yeah. It's sad but true. If the economy can stretch to tourists flying around the moon, it may stretch to tourists staying on the moon. Governments may sponsor "bases" for governmental reasons (shows of strength). But physically or economically, there is nothing in space we would pay for. Asteroids for materials gets around the cost of land/mining rights. But if the cost is there, places could drop the price of mining rights, and then SpaceX would lose all those launches/asteroid returns. An economy is a strange thing, and you cannot second guess it. The Sproose Goose never really "flew", and even the big double decker aircraft are being retired at times. Sometimes it works out (international air flight) sometimes it does not (channel Hovercraft ferries ).

Perhaps a dry run/engine test?

Same. Has it gone?

The greatest mystery... and possibly a source of anti entropy and free energy... WHERE DO THE COWS GET THE CALCIUM!!! They are not magic matter producers are they?

I'm tempted to go see this. I hate "singularity/magic/mystery in space" stories, because often it goes down a deep rabbit hole of insanity on complete breaking of reality (I just want Apollo 13 style stories. XD )... but I could let it go for just one story, as it seems just the setup + ending is "magic space radiation" and the rest hard sci-fi.

Seems about so. I'd also suggest to StarTheory, on having the option to start "early/mid/late" like you can in say CIV games or Simcity games. Then seasoned players could start with everything "unlocked", instead of starting pre-space age. I mean, a LOT of games go "are you sure you want to skip the tutorial" when you start. And to be fair, with saves/replays/reloads there is no real punishment for new players who just want to learn by failing. The game could always pop up a little "you crashed 5x in a row, do you wish to try the flying tutorial/orbital tutorial/awesome mun lander tutorial" etc.

This old pic shows no folding: But instead pop out legs. [edit] But tweets say it's an old design.

Procedural. I don't think they have gone in KSP2... but hopefully *will* with wings. But IMO all tank parts need to be procedural. With shrinking possible... and then last one is a jumbosizer going up to max sizes. The game really suffers from not having it at times. Oooh. I just mentioned this exact idea on the other thread. As in, for casual players, the "other" space programs/Kerbals could help you progress when you hit a wall. You could sit in on their launches/stations/habs. See where/when they get there, and for cash/lower points buy their "tech/science" for those who don't want to go to Moho/Jool/Eelo for the normal tech tree/science/progression... you could even just leave timewarp on and watch the AI complete all the missions (probably just auto complete them ) . You'd "skip" to the end of the tech tree. You'd not get points, but it would allow you to start at any point in the game history. A bit like choosing 1950s/60s/70s etc, or 90s/00s/10s or even now. Choose early career, and you get small rockets, ICBMs etc... choose mid and you get shuttles. Choose late, you get SpaceX style re-use. Choose future, you get the high tech stuff. Not "cheating" just choosing the starting states.

Wait. So if they just want to crash rockets, why are they playing Career? (PS, and all this can be totally sidestepped by offering "singleplayer AI multiplayer opponents", which just gives you a second Kerbal space race company to play against, any of their "discoveries" become yours a little later, so even "noobs" get up the tech tree, because an AI opponent gets the milestones first, but unlocks them for you. ).

As said. I'm not talking about making it arbitrary. But linking it to actual materials science/locations/launches/tests. Finding metallic hydrogen/checking the gravity to a gas giant/doing spectrometry with a telescope. "Arbitrary" in the same way any system of not giving you 100% parts is also arbitrary. Because the game is not real life, we can only simulate/simplify it. No, in the career mode. In the science mode. Not in the sandbox mode. There can always be multiple options (telescope for Jool, atmospheric test in Jool, science hab orbiting Jool) etc. If He2 or whatever is limited to Jool orbit, then no amount of "gating" science stops the need to get fuel from Jool before going interplanetary. If He2 can be made on the mun? Then you could launch an interplanetary on day 1 if you like... if you don't want future tech engines... but things like "nuclear fusion" don't fall out of an envelope by magic... it takes a LOT of testing and learning. Why? If they want that, that is what sandbox is for. Career *is* a step by step gameplay system.

They are aiming for realistic explosions. *Realistic* and dynamic explosions. Who complains of that?! XD

IMO it would be great for science to work the same, but gatekeeping not being on upgrading the science lab with cash but making "new discoveries", around planets/moons etc. That way, if you'd grinded 100% science on Kerbin, you'd still get the science points, but to get metallic hydrogen/HE2 fusion drives etc, you'd need to reach mun/duna/jool/eelo to unlock that "tier" of the tech tree.

Oooh. Yeah, dockbump slam the other sat into re-entry!

Yeah. Like, "scanning Jool, we think metallic hydrogen might exist" then you research up the tech tree to unlock it. Before then, Kerbs don't even know to look for it.

IIRC in the interviews, they programed this with physics sync up in mind... though, they kinda just said, "it was a factor", but not if they solved it. So I'd assume concurrent flights. If the code is too broken though, they could instead make colony resupply the multiplayer factor. You see other craft docked/etc, and each player can supply the other (and thus time warp/sync would put the supplied there when you reach that time stamp on your game). I could see that working, even as a "MP lite" mode.

When? When do they cross each others orbital plane? Could you make this in KSP? It's like a couple of mins in Hyperedit. See if it magically collides. Could they collide with non-Starlink sats? Yes. Can anything bad happen. Yes. I don't know if it's worth our time worrying or fighting against it though. If it was down to me, I'd ban anything above running, and insist every dog be kept outside on a lead. Oh cats... I'll have to think very hard for what to do with cats... mine keeps knocking my spaceship collecting off the shelf and breaking it!

Ah, just for the planetary vab then.

Other starlink sats won't collide... because they are not aiming at each other. That's like saying the car in australia will collide with the one in canada... because "chances". Wait. That's not how this works. That's not how anything works! The 2 sats involved move. NOT the other 1200 or 12,000. Only the two involved.

You are saying the satellites are not maneuverable. Have you played KSP? Is it a false analogy? Really, did they just launch? I missed that one. Possibly. But other arguments are nonsensical currently.

So. You are saying we need to take every car off the road. Boat out of the sea. And aircraft out the sky... because: "What proof they are going?" to avoid collisions? Yes, if you put it in orbit.

Huh? Can cars evade? You: Me: What proof?