EatThePath

As I understand it the region of stability for orbits is dependant on both the distance and the relative masses of the bodise involved. The larger you make the jovian, the further out you can put the super earth, but the further out you need to.

The two aren't logically required to be exclusive, and SSTO doesn't necessarily imply reusability, though admittedly all the SSTO concepts I'm aware of aim for it. As I mentioned, SpaceX is working on launchers that if all goes well would be both staged and fully reusable.

My understanding is that in the case of the earth and luna, the energy is coming from earth's rotation. The tidal bulge is being carried forward by earth's rotation, and then pulls the moon 'forward' even as the moon pulls it 'backward'. Thus the moon gains orbital velocity and the earth's rotation slows. Estimates have the orbit of the moon much lower and the rotation of the earth much faster back when it was formed. It also seems plausible that the moon itself once had an unlocked rotation, and tidal forces have long since sapped all available energy out of that.

Honestly, is SSTO really desirable? The advantages of staging, that I'm sure we've all experienced in KSP, are so dramatic that giving them up just for the ideal of simplicity seems... foolish. You might be interested in SpaceX's re-usability concepts. they're currently working on a system where the first stage will fly back to the launch site under its own power, and do a powered landing. As I understand it, after stage seperation the first stage is so light that the amount of propellant needed to do this is actually amazingly small, so it's far less payload penalty then you would at first expect.

The thread title is a bit pessimistic, though. Mars landing may be currently outside our grasp, but it's definitely within what is physically possible and even plausible. The main impediments are political and economic.

The amount of cloud you'd have to scoop to get a useful amount of water is pretty impractically massive, and while you're in the clouds you've still got most of the work of getting to mars(or even just earth orbit) ahead of you so it wouldn't gain you much anyway.

This is actually the problem that was in my mind when designing the core structure of Atomic Space Navy/Tools/Race. As a consequence of that effort I think a version of KSP with a proper n-body simulation and predictable physics out to a useful duration is possible, but it's something that you'd have to build the whole game around, not something that could reasonably be patched in at this stage. To the original question, it all depends on what you're using it for. Broadly I'd say it's pretty good, but it breaks down in certain areas, and while the mechanics are pretty good the properties of things are rather wildly unrealistic.

A little update on that: I've been working on improving Orbit Toy Console's reporting. The new version is pretty rough, but I used a 94608000 second run(aprox three years) of the KSP system to stretch it's legs. The report before the run Kerbol is system center Moho orbits Kerbol at 6.315765E+09 meters Eve orbits Kerbol at 9.931012E+09 meters Gilly orbits Eve at 1.692783E+07 meters Kerbin orbits Kerbol at 1.359984E+10 meters Minmus orbits Kerbin at 4.700274E+07 meters Mun orbits Kerbin at 1.199863E+07 meters Duna orbits Kerbol at 2.176247E+10 meters Ike orbits Duna at 3290000 meters Dres orbits Kerbol at 3.518412E+10 meters Jool orbits Kerbol at 6.535038E+10 meters Pol orbits Jool at 1.707127E+08 meters Bop orbits Jool at 1.071973E+08 meters Tylo orbits Jool at 6.849674E+07 meters Vall orbits Jool at 4.315246E+07 meters Laythe orbits Jool at 2.71864E+07 meters Eeloo orbits Kerbol at 8.889949E+10 meters And after: Kerbol is system center Moho orbits Kerbol at 4.682423E+09 meters Eve orbits Kerbol at 9.820839E+09 meters Gilly orbits Eve at 5.920415E+07 meters Kerbin orbits Kerbol at 1.36333E+10 meters Minmus orbits Kerbin at 2266073 meters Mun orbits Kerbin at 1.178361E+07 meters Duna orbits Kerbol at 1.945858E+10 meters Ike orbits Duna at 6014023 meters Dres orbits Kerbol at 3.516957E+10 meters Jool orbits Kerbol at 1.587453E+11 meters Pol orbits Jool at 2.863533E+07 meters Bop orbits Jool at 3.339007E+07 meters Vall orbits Jool at 8.485741E+07 meters Laythe orbits Kerbol at 1.110553E+12 meters Tylo orbits Kerbol at 1.739705E+12 meters Eeloo orbits Kerbol at 1.10614E+11 meters The biggest thing to be aware of is that the reported distances aren't presently properly calculated semi-major axis, but rather raw distance at time of report. Still useful for getting an idea of what is where, though. Of particular note in my eyes is the migration of minmus.

The simplest way is to calculate the forces acting on an object(look up the proper equations for gravity and whatever else is involved) every frame, update it's velocity(velocity=velocity+acceleration*time), and then update it's position(position=position+velocity*time). There are more complex methods that achieve better accuracy and stability, but they aren't always necessary. To find relatively stable orbits to work with, look up the math for kepler orbits. From that you can get the starting velocities you need for orbits of given shapes. Though from the game you describe, I'm not sure if realistic orbital mechanics would necessarily serve your gameplay best.

So what happens to the momentum when those virtual particles wink back out of existence? If it just vanishes, then the drive is breaking conservation of momentum, isn't it?

Until it's been verified to hell and back, I will always distrust reaction-less thrusters and put them in the bad science category. I don't know enough quantum to debunk this myself, but it hits the right notes to get red flagged.

Well, it would be networked after a fashion, just using the existing wetware

Computers implanted in multiple brain regions and wired directly to the internet would almost certainly be a horrible mistake. The medical uses described would, if all implemented at once, allow a compromised system to show the user anything and direct their body to do anything. Even if thought control possible, a full hijacking of your body probably is. That said, there's first of all no reason at present to want that level of permeation. The chips described in the article are all corrective measures for forms of brain damage. They'd receive their inputs from the brain only, and so long as they were well shielded from outside electromagnetic influence there's no reason for them to be remotely hackable. If I had any of the issues described, I'd accept a chip in a heartbeat unless they had a poor track record. Anything else is purely speculative. I can conceive augmentations that I'd willingly take, and ones I wouldn't. I'd be extremely hesitant about anything networked, especially wireless.

Near term orbital shipyards would indeed probably be orbital assembly and fueling, and maybe patching up problems that arose during launch. From-scratch construction in orbit only starts to make sense when you've got some material sources other than earth.

Of course. But we don't have any orbital construction yards, and most sci-fi ships from games and movies aren't easily built out of modules we can currently launch.