nejc

WIth Jool having a surface we have no suface-less planets in the system. To me that removes something unique. I'm all for mini Neptunes in other systems, but I'd like the main system to be an analogue of the real Solar System, and we have 4 suface-less planets here and no mini Neptunes. I hope this is eventually patched. I would be disappointed though if there are no mini Neptunes in other systems.

Man I really hope this isn't the case permanently. We already have a planet with a dense atmosphere and a surface. It's Eve. Every other planet represents something in the real Solar System. A Jool with a surface would be redundant, and gas giants would have no representation. I always hoped that the game could be expanded with balloon ships to explore and extract from the gas giant. Not land on it like on every other planet already. To me Jool was supposed to be special in the sense that it an eerie bottomless deadly pit.

A Slower Speed of Light gives an idea as to how noticeable it would be at small fractions of c. For me personally it is enough to desire it.

Practical effects of relativity would not become important at these speeds, but optical effects on the skybox would, as these effects become prominent faster. Stars behind would readshift and expand from each other, stars in front would concentrate together and blueshift. No effect on gameplay but a neat optical effect nonetheless, if they choose to implement it. If we could reach higher speeds using antimatter, however, they could add a simple fix without having to simulate relativity entirety, by just making the life support get used up slower, thus simulating one simple consequence of time dilation.

Altitude alone is not indicative of the speed. It's 1/3rd the way to the moon at 24 hour period. This gives it a speed of 9.8 km/s. Sea level escape velocity is 11.2 km/s, and at 1/3rd the way to the moon the escape velocity is ~2.5 km/s. So quite interplanetary assuming I did the math right. Furthermore, if the cable alone is used as the counterweight by just extending it beyond GEO without using dedicated weight structure, higher altitudes can be achieved.

On top of what was just said above, space elevator does not end at GEO since it needs counterweight. If it went only to GEO it would fall down. By going further than GEO you can be on an interplanetary trajectory by just releasing the cable.

It's the difference between handwavium and unobtainium. Handwavium being magic, unobtainium being speculative science. At least for me this distinction is not important here, because we have a solution that includes neither. Beefed up project Timberwind NTRs would only be speculative engineering. In most cases it is irreconcilable yes. But in this particular case using more powerful NTRs wouldn't make any difference for group 2, but would make a difference for group 1.

Only metallic hydrogen was mentioned as gateway tech in the linked interview. We might be forced to us to use those engines, if we want to progress beyond a certain point. Quote from the interview: I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that only one of the engines that unlocks progression is metallic hydrogen? Or does it mean that one progression step is unlocked by metallic hydrogen engines specifically. If the latter, then we will be forced to use them. Didn't Scott suggest this in the interview? To keep the planets on rails, but make spacecraft under n-body influence? Then the developer said that they want to preserve a lot of the core game-play.

I could't find any information on that. Just Isp. Given the fact that advanced NTRs were considered for first stages, and only cancelled for safety concerns, I assumed that performance could be sufficient. On top of that, If they can make planets 1/10 the size, and reaction wheels 10x the performance, then beefing up NTRs is nothing. It's just part of balancing. Also, I think we can safely assume that if development of nuclear rockets didn't stall for safety reasons, we would have even more advanced NTR designs. In my opinion, beefed up NTR is less magical than low pressure metallic hydrogen, even if both are. I think we can make similar comparisons between Alcubierre vs Orion and metallic hydrogen vs. pebble bed NTR (beefed up). One is more powerful than the other, but relies on the potentially nonexistent substance - negative mass in one case, stable low pressure metallic hydrogen in the other. Which is why I view Metallic hydrogen rocket the same as Alcubierre drive - replaceable. The difference is that I can omit that. With metallic hydrogen being labeled as gateway tech, I might be forced to use it. If there are also other engine types as part of gateway tech, then I don't care if there is also metallic hydrogen. I can just ignore it then.

I agree that we should use suspension of realism for fun and education, however just as we are of the opinion that we should not to use magical hyperspace drives, and instead use fusion drives, since they are a reasonable albeit less powerful alternative, why not substitute metallic hydrogen with pebble bed NTR? Calculations for practical engine using metallic hydrogen give it an maximum Isp of 1120s. Pebble bed NTR from project Timberwind, a successor of NERVA, has a projected Isp of 1000s. They are in the same ball park, so no need to rely on potentially magic substances, when a realistic alternative is available. We could go on and say that maximum theoretical Isp for metallic hydrogen is acually 1700s, if we ignore cooling requirements, but that assumes another magic material that doesn't melt at 6000K. If we allow that, we can also beef up pebble bed NTRs, just like we allow beefed up reaction wheels. (Someone please correct me if I have missed something.) Also, comparred to NTRs metallic hydrogen is in my opinion of lesser educational value. Showing people more powerful NTRs beyond NERVA is in my opinion of greater benefit due to all of nuclear fearmongering that is going on. If it weren't for that, maybe nuclear pulse drives would not be just paper rocket concepts right now. Unlike metallic hydrogen drives, we could build NTRs and Orion drives right now. Just my suggestion.

I was clear above when I said, kerbal biology doesn't bother me because it's a physics game not biology game. My analogy was that you can have immortal zoo visitors in a zoo game because the game is not about them. But you can't have flying pigs in a zoo game. Immortal visitor = kerbal, flying pig = low pressure metallic hydrogen That is an engineering magic, not a change in scientific principles. As I specified, I am in favor of engineering magic, but no science magic. Engineering magic like moar boosters is the sentiment of KSP. Also, I specified that where there are no alternatives, science magic is more tolerable. There is no super spacesuit designs or concepts for long duration Venus/Eve mission. But, there is an alternative for low pressure metallic hydrogen drive. Just replace it with beefed up drive from project Timberwind. Hopefully. That is what I meant by "variety of game-play options". My fear is that, since it is being labeled as gateway tech, it might be necessary for progression.

Low pressure metallic hydrogen is not a small suspension of disbelief for someone who is scientifically knowledgeable (relevant meme below). It is more akin to ice remaining solid at low pressure above boiling point. This meddles with science of propulsion and not with engineering of propulsion which is what KSP is all about (at least for me). Moar boosters is an engineering thing that is the sentiment of KSP. In my opinion, speculative engineering yes, speculative science no. There are actual engineering studies for fusion and even antimatter drives. It all operates on established scientific principles, whether or not engineering of that is actually possible. And we can produce small amounts of antimatter. Non of that is true for metallic hydrogen drives. If there were no alternatives for this gateway tech, I would tolerate it better. But there are alternatives. Beefing up the nuclear thermal engines from project Timberwind represents a more scientifically accurate alternative for beyond NERVA tech. There is no alternative for too small planets without compromising game-play, so I tolerate that, but applaud the mod that fixes it. Saying it's a game doesn't cut it for me (relevant meme for below). In more extreme example, we can't have flying pigs in zoo games as one of the main mechanics. But, we can have immortal zoo visitors, because the game might not be about them. So, I don't mind kerbals being immune to radiation or laying eggs or too small planets. It's about science of space flight. Not about science of biology or geophysics (at least for me). Any of the following situations regarding metallic hydrogen drives would work for me: They are optional on the tech tree and can be substituted with alternatives like beefed up Timberwind. Going from chemical/thermal nuclear propulsion directly to nuclear pulse is possible, thus omitting gateway tech on the tech tree. Balance game-play in a way that modding away gateway tech does not compromise colonies etc. All of this is my opinion, so I am merely casting a vote and hoping for not just variety of propulsion, but for a variety of game-play options as well.

I think the relevant topic is here: Regarding this topic, the stars would probably have to be static for relativistic effects to be manageable for game-play, assuming they were to be implemented at all.

I don't necessarily see a problem with ICF. Ridiculous numbers of boosters stacked together in KSP1 would also be an engineering nightmare. Only shrapnel would reach orbit with such designs. But that is the sentiment of KSP. I don’t mind overblown engineering. Just stick to real science when it comes to propulsion. So I'm not too worried, I just hope that metallic hydrogen can be ignored on the tech tree (unlikely).

Never heard of a concept for such propulsion so I consider it even more speculative. As far as I'm aware, they have the same temperature, pressure hurdles.