AngelLestat

So.. you are saying that the event horizon appears only "after" the whole imploding process is finish? Please, think in those words a min before answer.

Of course this idea is great, is the ultimate machine! You drop any trash into and you get e=mc2, also in the paper if I remember well, there is a plan how to make other kinds of black holes to produce more black holes after those. But this idea has so many issues that for now remains label like a "curious proposal". One year ago I was asking some stuffs about the Avatar Ship to Adam Crowl, he was very kind to answer, then this Crane idea come out into the discussion. This is what he answer me: You might have noticed that I made some helpful comments on that preprint that get acknowledged. So I do have a few thoughts on using black-holes – however it will be immensely more difficult than matter-antimatter, something that I disagree with Louis Crane on. Concentrating a million tons of energy into a near infinitesimal point is an immensely challenging task. Directing the decay products into useful thrust will be another immensely challenging task. And force-feeding such a tiny hole will be incredibly hard. Three “miracles†of physics will be required. If Louis is right with his Meduso-Anthropic Principle, then it must be possible. Somebody mention a gamma ray laser, like many of you know, gamma rays are really hard to manage it. So you cant have mirrors (for now), maybe some kind of rusty lens made of gold. That picture one of the problems that Adam is comment, try to focus all that energy in infinitesimal point is something that is out of our dreams. And I think we have yet to hear what quantum mechanics has to say about this, after all is within its frame of reference and was totally ignored. The 2 main problems of the antimatter is how you get it, and how you storage, every else is "manageable". If you had any continuous function that goes from 5 to 20, then you can predict that it has to pass in one moment for 8. When you said that when you create a black hole goes directly to the size that you mention without pass their intermediate states violates that theorem, or best to said, the common sense Of course if you inject a lot of energy very quick when you create it, then you will not find "many" problems with its initial state. But the event horizon start to exist from its first moments.

First, I never said nothing about the velocity requeriments, on the contrary, is the thing that I am asking. And the existence of an acretion disk meanwhile you had 130 petawatts of energy radiating from the black hole is hard to imagine. At least for me.

Great, that is what I love of KSP community. So you can clarify so things. I understand that you need 1kg of antimmater-matter to accelerate 1kg of payload to 0,6c with 100% of efficiency (ISP=1c). This sBH (1 atom radius 5 years lifespam, 129 Pw) is consumming 1.4 kg of matter each second. So you need to introduce more than 1.4 kg of matter each second with your particle accelerator in a way that consume less energy than you get from E=mc2. What velocity your matter needs to reach to enter in this SBH? How efficient is a particle accelerator to proppel each gram of matter into that velocity? This radiation comes from hawking radiation. So you are getting the 100% of energy of the matter that you had inside of the black hole. Of course, transform or harvester that kind of energy into usable energy is a pain in the ass. Just one correction, energy from antimmatter annihilation is easier to use than the one from hawking radiation. At least in some antimatter annihilation you get 60% of charge pions. And there is already papers with ideas how to obtain 100% of propulsion from annihilation. . How I mention above hawking radition is a lot harder to manipulate. About the acceleration that you can get from antimatter at low speeds, is fix it if you use catalized fussion until you reach more speed. But this same problem also would be fund with SBH propulsion. This is incomplete. That is a real problem. This seems to contradict the Bolzano theorem

You know the amount of energy that any particle accelerator spend just to push less than 1 gram of atoms to close the speed of light? And this su.cker is radiating petawatts of energy each second. So what difference it will makes some atoms against the mass of a montain. I am not saying that is impossible, I just saying that looks unlikely. Where you get those numbers by the way? Adam Crowl made a review about this paper. Heres is a note in century dreams, if you search the word "feed" you can find a lot of skeptics. And they are all science people. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=11751 All depends on the size of the black hole, in the paper there is a table. From those with just 0,2 MillonsTons to 7 MillionsTons. The life of the big one is 6000 years to some days in the small one. The big is a lot easier to manupulate and feed, but if you want it to push an interstellar ship is not so good. Becouse you have less radiation power with more mass.

If you need to use a particle accelerator for each bit of mass that you want to convert, then you are wasting more energy that the one you get from it.

Yeah, I read this paper some time ago.. At begining I was enthusiastic about the idea (is a really good idea after all), but it has their drawbacks. For start, gamma rays are very difficult to handle, so how you manage to focus all that power in one point (atom side). Second problem is how you feed this beast? You hear, when this black holes are so small they expell a lot of energy, so any kind of mater that you want to put inside the black hole will disintegrate before reach it. It will produce millons of times more force to expell than to pull. And is a really tiny black hole, so is really hard try to put some thing in its "mounth" Also the energy that expell is more hard to harvester than antimatter annihilations. But well, if someone find the way to solve these issues, seems like we have a perfect machine.. I drop a banana and I get E=mc2 from that banana Also the hawking theories needs to be right.

This will remove the freedom of what mission you choose and it push you to be multitasking. Pros: If you make all time dependent then all start to had sense. You can not abuse using time warp with the different mechanics. A great benefic with mining resources and science that it will take time. Cons: If you wait for best launch windows, then you wait 1 extra year at the planet and maybe you fly over there, The whole mission takes you 3 years lets said. Then you find that you have a big budget or the fact that your reputation is ruin becouse you dint do nothing in those 3 years. So this force you to be multitasking, launch a mission, then plain the next mission meanwhile the first mission is not finish. What if we dont want to be multitasking? I try some times make many mission at the same time and I dint enjoy it much. I like to focus in one thing at the time. Searching the best way to improve that mission (this mean go back to the VAH many times if I need to and launch again), if in the middle of those attempts I also need to focus in many other missions doing some actions over time. It will become tedious. I really wish that there was a mechanic to not force you into multitasking. Or maybe there is... Well this can be fix it with a bit of reality. The space station it does not make science by its own. It needs astronauts. And each astronauts goes to the space station to test a particular theory or experiment. In that case you will find that you dont get any benefic leaving kerbanauts up there once they already finish their experiments. So you need to exchange with new kerbanauts if you wanna keep doing science. This give a new use to the "hire kerbanaut" panel. You will hire some sicientist kerbanauts just to make science. Each one trying to prove their own theorys. For now like you said, I keep with the idea of money based in goals with some kind of loan budget mechanic (in case you want to make a little jump in your ambitions).

By definition is the most convenient. It uses know physsics and the most important (no propellent). If you are talking about interstellar distances (this mean more than 0,2c at DV), the rocket equation would ruin all your hopes if you try to use any kind of propellent (except antimatter). So even if your fusion or ion engine has an ISP of 5000, 10000, 30000 it would not be enoght. (Maybe if you conbine with a magsail to brake it can work) So you need antimatter, this mean ISP=300000000. This plus hundred or reason that I dont want to mention, is why you will find that Beamed propulsion or magsail, or solar sails are the best to-day candidates for interstellar travel. (no mention by me, just look and read). And the fact that once you are in the alpha centaury system, with just the sail, you can visit all the planets that you want. I am agree if the source is magnetic, but according to their calculations this effect it cant be enoght, for that reason some other waves like sound, alfin or gravitational are mentioned. I also read that a solar sail is the structure that less damage takes from the interstellar medium. Becouse if a molecule hits the sail, just passes right through making a tiny hole, this is almost imperceptible to the sail function. But if you had a big fussion ship, this molecule will passes right throught the whole ship and fuel. So the molecule will disintegrate releasing radiation and damaging a lot more the ship. Is not the same case that you mention, but I think it will behave similar. Like velocity said there are many ways, like I mention before one thing that can be cost effective is to use the sun gravity to focus the signal. Also can work to explore our destination system before send the prove. ALso the probe needs to have a good autopilot software to react to any drawback, becouse it can not wait for our commands XD Yeah is fun. They already acomplish make a perfect mirror, this will allow many things, like the scalability of lasers or any kind of optic without decrease in efficiency. About the divergence and how to focus, yes. there is new ways how to mitigate that. The real problem is how to aim. To solve that problem, we need to accelerate our sail in less time. Until now, my favorite concept that also decrease the energy consuption is the SailBeam concept by Jordin Kare. In the seti case, maybe they use many frecuencies at the same time with weird error correction algorithms that would look like just noice for us. And why not neutrins instead electromagnetic to send the signal... who knows xd If your sail was made to reflect one kind of frecuency, then you use a laser of the same freacuency to send the signal. I guess.

Of course like many of you said, we need explore our solar system first that we know so little. But following the question of this topic. My answer is: Possible in the next 25 or 35 years. Method: Graphene Solar Sail with a mesh weaves, where the weave "spaces" are less than 1/2 the wavelength of light. This will make the graphene reflect some kind of light with high efficiency. All the instruments would be imprented in the same Sail structure, maybe with a little payload in the extreme (parachute design) that it would be the signal transmissor and receptor that uses the sail like parabolic. This saves weight and also make it capable to resist high acceleration. It will use just the Sun light to receive propulsion. So no laser-masser battery needed. Suns gives a lot of energy if we close enoght. Meanwhile at earth orbit (1au) we have 1366 w/m2, at 0,01 Au we have 13660000 w/m2, finally at 0,007 au we have 27710285 w/m2. (sun radius is 0.00465 AU), flares at magnetic loops raice over the surface with a distance of 0,001 au) At 0,01 au a final velocity of 6% speed of light (with payload) is possible. We still can get a lot more speed if we close even more, but we dont understand yet why at some height over surface, temperature seems raice until 1 millon degrees. Of course is not maybe a real temperature, becouse there are just particles, but still the invisible effect that heat them, is unknown. For that reason Nasa will send a probe in 2018 to explore that sun region. So we will need to wait until that mission to know how close we can get. Using the same method, the sail would be able to brake at alpha centauri. (In fact it would be easier becouse is a binary system) About the safety of the sail, is almost garantize (not sure the payload), graphene does not melt becouse is carbon, it sublimates at 5500 celcius degrees. It will reflect mostly all light, but even if it doesn´t, by Stefan-Boltzmann Law will stop to rise their temperature at 2500 celcius or less. Also the instruments would be expose short time, first the sail needs to fall to the sun using extra weight to accelerate, this will serve like heat shield until the sail deploy in its periapsis. Astronomer? Or just hobby? I would like to save your contact in case some day need some help with optic calculations. There is other option I guess. Not easy of course. To use our sun gravity to focusing light at 700 Au (alpha centauri-Sun focal point). This will be a lot easier with radio signals, also very usefull to comunicate with our probe. But seems also possible with light. Even we are dealing with a narrow annulus shape, the final area is huge. With this will be possible to see planets in the alpha centauri system like we were almost there. At the end of this video there is a way to accomplish that.

I cant said that I dont like it, but I hope it a lot more from the tweakable system. I thought that it would be possible to change all parameters like we want. Examples: escale and all kind of parameters like we were in the cfg file. But with a simple and easy UI. I dint notice in my system an improve in the loading time. But well, the fact that now we can set landing gears or other stuff (on or off) from the begining seems great.

Well, all this TIME thing seems like a big mess. I would give all the reputation that I can to the first who solve this problem. This problem seems like a two-edged sword. For one side, we have that time in KSP is meaningless. Becouse it does not matter if we are 50 years playing with a prove mission. Becouse the technology it will not increase in those 50 years. Then we have a lot of things like many of you pointed that are time dependent, one of them is the charge of the solar panels. Also, we need to take into account the future addoms like a economic system and mining resources. Then we need to merge all of them with time warp, and try to avoid: -repetitive mechanics -abusive mechanics -multitasking missions advantages -mechanics that removes the game freedom. Some games solve these problems using turn base mechanics or goals. But it seems that in this case we need to have some mechanics time dependents, and others based in goals. Other way to look this problem would be make all time dependent, but then you will have a time limit to complete missions. This will remove a lot of the freedom that the game already has. How I said.. Is a big mess. Good luck. Maybe someone can think out of the box here and solve the whole thing.

Yeah, this is what I would hope to see if some day squad implement an economic system. After all, rocket design depends so much on this feature. But yeah, Kerbonauts recover I guess needs to be free. Also discount the damage parts.

Of course, for that reason is called realistic physics But there is 1 o 2 that are from 90th. But yes, they dont count.. But all other categories still count. Yeah!! I guess I found the source of your concern.. You are misunderstudding something about gravity. Gravity does not end, but after some distance it becomes insignificant. Is due to reverse square rule. Lets make some examples. Gravity from Earth at Earth surface: 9,8m/s2 = 1g G from Sun at Sun surface: 27g G from Sun at 1AU (earth orbit): 0,0006g G from Sun at 10AU (saturn orbit): 0,000006g G from Sun at 40AU (pluto orbit): 0,0000000125g Of course, we at earth we can not measure that 0,0006g force from the sun, becouse we are in orbit around. For those 2 reason, jupiter or saturn moons are in stable orbits. Becouse the moons are at the same orbit speed than saturn around the sun, and second becouse the pull from saturn at moons distance is a lot higher than the sun influence. therefore, spheres of influence method gives results very close to the reality. The 18.4 standard demo version of the game was launch at February 2013, We can take that date like the coming out of the game in massive way. So this place this date like the origins of KSP. So no recent. You will understand it eventually. Proxima centaury is very far from Alpha A and B, and is a dwarf, so their influence is NONE. Alpha A is at 35au in distance from Alpha B. So if you had a planet at earth distance (1au) orbiting one of them, then you will find that is a stable orbit. Due to the 2 reason that I explain above. And the fact that we dint discover any planet at larger distance than 0,02 Au or not such small like earth, is becouse WE CANT! Is our technology limit, not the Alpha system limit. I dont know if it can be the case.. but well.. I already answer this, but I want to add that is the same "unpredictable enviroment" that if you take kerbin with the mun. Or Kerbol and Jool. Like you saw, Sphere of influence is enoght close to reality so we dont need to complait about it. When we compare STL to FTL, to the sake of discussion, we are talking about interestellar travel at 1%, 10% or 70% the speed of light. So is not by default in the game. .I already answer this 4 post back with a link, please no lets go back to this. Both are simulators, one is focused at rocket construction, the other at piloting and instrumentation. KSP is in its infance so it lacks of a good aerodinamics system and other things. But is not on purpose. Sorry if I look like an ass.hole, but my low lv in english make me unable to show the politeness that I would like. Talking in spanish I would look like a totally different person. Really... But if you had a f1 car race simulator, then at certain level you can make your car fly. It will not be kinda anoying if they remove you from the frame of reality where you was? But well , I know your answer. Is not a simulator. Is a game. In case that they add another star system, I guess they will not had other choice than add both, just seeing how divide the opinions are. After all, ones of the primary objetives its make mostly all happy and sell. But it will depend on the reprisal actions from the anti-FTL terrorist group

I dint want to keep with this discussion, but damm... so many things to answer :S Of course, me too, but you still dint not answer me the example that I give you! You can have a dwarf star in a binary link with kerbol, its planets orbits can be a lot closer to the dwarf. So kerbol will no affect them. I can name 200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_flight_simulator_games From the simulator category (of course KSP is in there), no one has STL. But like the 20% had FTL. From all the other categories, the +90% had FTL, no one that I know had STL. Is enought evidence?? Yes, you are right.. that is from FEBRUARY 2013! The logic that you use is all wrong. Of course you can find examples of ustable particular binary systems. But one doest not discard the other like I told you in my previous post. There are still a lot of possibilities where binary systems can be stable. Your first example is nonsense in this case. we are talking about a distance to be interesting from the point of view of low speed ships. In your example is about planets orbiting 2 (no so close) stars. If those stars would be a lot more closely (lets said 0,1 AU or less) all those planets would not had any problem. Also if their distance is +200AU, then you dont have problems either. This distance can be less depending if they are dwarf stars or not. Also depends on their planetary axis inclination between each other. One example.. Why jupiter can have a stable moon system, the same saturn, without being affeted by the sun or other planets? And all this can be modeled with a low error in the same way that ksp is doing it. Using spheres of influence. First, orion drive is just one of many (and the most old) design for STL. Never was attempted. So your logic said, if I cant lift 1 ton, then I will try to lift a mountain? (This is in the case where FTL is possible). And almost all physsics rules point that is not. Lol, that is close to the logic of a religiuos preach. We can simul things. That is the beauty of mathemathics. So most part of binary stars systems are stable. And sush a few cases are unstable. Like all planets that we found.. Why is that? ah yes.. We can only find planets that are very close to the star or if they are big enought. Also if there are many planets in the system, is a lot more difficult find a planet using the boucing effect. But I am agree that Alpha A and B had a distance where is really hard that a planetary system like ours can exist. 1- I said that? No.. I dint said that. So why you put words that I dint say? FTL remove all the logic and credibility from the game. That is the main reason. A STL drive is just 50 or 100 years ahead us. FTL (in case that is possible) is 1000 or 10000 years ahead. 2- Of course that mimics real physsics. What simulator it doesn´t? 3- If they want to add after STL a FTL drive for the fans. I dont care so much. I just would not use it. But a FTL drive is a lot easier to modder than a STL. In the STL, relativity effects needs to being had into account. The black box needs to be less black. This week if I find the time. But my last suggestion was about procedural parts snapping between standard sizes to increase possible parts, shapes and increase by a lot the game performance in FPS and loading time. I guess I can not had a better suggestion than that. And still, I dint see any answer or concern from the dev team. So why to bother.

Heh, I guess we both was wrong about the last words. What I meant to said about binary systems, is that the possibilities are many. You cant said that a binary system is unstable, the only thing that you can say is that a particular binary system can be unstable. You can have a dwarf star in a binary link with kerbol, its planets orbits can be a lot closer to the dwarf. So kerbol will no affect them. Well it seems that you dint read all post in this topic. Some post back someone pro FTL said that is not possible add a binary system becouse we need n-body systems. Someone explain him how it may be possible (in the same way that we have now) and he complaints about reality The only limitation is the will or knowledge to solve things. 1-2) it has nothing to do with difficulty. 3) Just see a FTL system in conjuction with normal rockets it will be crazy, but more crazy it will be the mechanic and theory excuse to balance a FTL system with normal chemical rockets. 4) I dont know what is that. But you forgot the main reason. 5) If I want to play a space game with FTL, I can choose between all space games done so far. But if I want to play a game with real physsics and a possible STL design. Then I CANT. Many of your question are already answered in the same topic that you post. And before your post. If you choose ignore or misunderstudd them (maybe my fault), then lets see if with my next topic will help you to clarify that. Harvester in a begining had an idea to incorporate something like a FTL system.. But was just a comment and a thought when the game was in its infance. Nobody makes a perfect proyect from the begining. You start with a idea for a game, then brainstorming comes, you start to try things, of course not all the ideas that you had are good ones. When you analize them in deeply you may change of mind. So stop talking about commets that was made or not. There is no commandments written in stone here that everybody needs to follow. Is a game in progress. The future will decide

May I have the last words before we go back to topic touche! But I think the same when over and over I read someone saying that FTL needs to be in the game instead STL system becouse the fun come first. So that was my answer to those. Yeah that is my stand. I answer this some post above yours. Beamed Sail is the exception. Agree. -------------------------------------------------------- Last thoghts. Why people that is pro FTL is so hard against on rail systems or physsics aproximations models? It seems a contradictions. And if a binary system there is live.. Then you can said that is stable. There is no point to use real physsics to see if in billions of years will collapse..

Yeah yeah yeah.. and in the past someone said that the earth was flat. But who said that? Ignorant people. 300 years bc someone with brain calculate its circumference with almost no error only based in some shadows at different location. Now science is much more accurate than it was before. If a scientist needs to make a claim, they need at least sigma 5, this mean 99,99994% sure about that. And you said Close to C is MORE or less.... More?? This is a trully evidence that you need reappraise about your stand. Massless particles reach C all the time. Particles with mass reach almost C all the time in particle accelerators. Now.. Try to find any kind of particle or theory where FTL is possible. Is like to said that lift a montain is easier than lift a feather. Thanks to us, thermodinamics exist to put a break to this nosense. Where is my last private reply about genes? Hi there. Last time that I check laser beams dont bend. The laser battery needs to be close to the star (sun-kerbol). The sail has a high cost, all the problems pointing and waiting to the exact time and date to make a push increase the cost and difficulty of something that you can solve with just chemical rockets. It will be possible try for fun, yes.. it will be practical? no. I answer this here What is the things that all last games pursue? Reality. Is the thing that let you feel like you were there. Of course is not easy to simulate. Of course there are things that can be avoided, (after all we are not a group of scientist planing a mission by several years), but this has nothing to do with FTL. I answer already the first line. Fun ? And who said that add an imaginary warp drive will add fun to a serious space program game? Why you need n-body physics to add another star system??? Why it can not be on rail like all other planets in KSP? And if you are in a galaxy or star cluster, a close star it will move in the same direcction and almost the same speed that your star. So you can forget about the galaxy and use fixed position in both stars. This guy not gets it

Lets make a facebook group "ksp players against FTL" yeah!!! Haha, joke The thing is, in case this would be possible some day. Is fair to say that is not going to happen in the next thousand years. We dont have any idea how to do it. The few mathematic models who predicts like possible, is becouse they took only the Special Relativity like reference. But they need take also Quantum mechanics and other factors into account. This happens becouse we still do not have a theory of everything. But even if we had one, thermodinamics rules said that the energy requirements would be huge. And that is the main reason why someone can said without fear to be wrong that this would not happen at least in 1000 or 10000 years. But if KSP in the future needs a way to include other star systems, then there is a realistic a fun way to do it. With know science and technology. I will try to post and explain what I am talking about in these days. Becouse it seems nobody stop talking about this.

The new shapes looks ugly, they are too big. Also the menu part count is increased by a lot. Why always modders dont take care of this issue. There is a limit to the amount of parts that we can add to the game. Also the loading time increase, the game performance decrease and find a part in the menu selection between many is harder. All these addoms would be great if they come in form of procedural parts. Snapping between standard sizes. I will keep the old version of real parachutes.

Yeah, I was looking for that in the list. That is one of the most annoying things that you see in all movies.

Sorry if someone mention this before. Stupidity. We can sell that by tons.

So hard is said "I am agree with Angel but with these details?"

Transport tourists or scientists to a space station ensuring their survival. If life support is added, this become a lot more fun.

How many times I read the same silly excuse... People always use the same invalid examples like argument against reality. Why invalid? -n-body physsics would take more process time. So their no choose the actual system becouse is less real and more fun.. UNDERSTAND? -If the scales are 1/10 is to avoid wait 15 min just to reach orbit.. But if squad would find a better warp system maybe this would not be necesary. -Being 1/10 they can not use the earth like model. For that reason they choose to use another hipothetical alien system. -The actual drag system is not on purpose. They want improve it to fix maximun reality posible.. But they dont know how. The game follows real physsics rules, with some good modeled and others poor modeled. But is the thing that the game pursues. Is a game in process, so they can not had all the perfect models, systems, parts, from the begining. They need to start with the basic to test the game and add other things. Why procedual would make the game too easy? Why? is really difficult stack different tanks? So we are playing tetris or a space program?