Kegereneku

Two persons here will see me coming. Career mode IMHO can only progress "naturally" if the entire gameplay oblige the player to follow a coherent technological progression. Because given the possibility player will "cheat" and we all agree that it would be disappointing to allow the player to land a manned-mission on Duna and return after only a dozen of flight, or let Scott Manley create a video-tutorial called "Finish Career mode in 3 hours". I don't believe "roughly total freedom" make a gameplay interesting. KSP may be about emulating the fun part of real rocket-science : the experimental rocket, the race to the Moon, launching probes and satellite, assembling space station. But it's only fulfilling if it was truly challenging to do, and no, I don't mean "challenging" as in "force the hard-core player to accomplish 100 objectives first", I mean challenging as in "you proved yourself, you sent probes/return vehicle to ease the work, and today you'll rewrite history" at the opposite of "cobbled together an inefficient and expensive rocket that couldn't fail and got bored because it was easy". The objective of Career mode should be to abandon sandbox mentality and make your career something unique, that can't be cleaned up and replaced entirely. So... to answer the Question : Here's what IMO I would consider a natural progress. (consider that phase change when you reach some key technologies) **EDIT : Consider that any "phase" progression is based on the Tech-tree and that all missions are optional, even if normal players wouldn't be too cocky to deign doing those "missions unworthy of their skill" since they propose a gain for something they would do anyway.** Phase 1 : [Very Low budget] [no energy source] [weak science] - suborbital probe rocket **EDIT : Lines likes this one, are NOT mission, just a description of what a "new player" would be doing.** [mission] - test various rocket engine (tutorial if you want to learn which engine to use and when) - suborbital manned rocket [mission] - achieve orbit with a probe (tutorial if you want) - achieve orbit = budget increase Phase 2 : [Low budget] [low energy source] [weak science] (every death is taken on the "reserve money" not the "budget money") [mission] - Do stuff to increase your budget and test technology = reserve money for any project - first EVA (which could even be locked before) [missions] Put various satellites in various orbit (occasion to learn what mean orbital mechanic) = reserve money for any project [mission] Land back at KSC = budget increase or reserve money for any project - first orbital rendezvous (NO RCS no docking port !) - first orbital rendezvous (with RCS and docking port) Phase 3 : [medium budget] [low energy source] [medium science] (the gameplay still don't allow you Duna with the parts you have) [mission] THE MOON IS THERE ! AND WE ARE GOING TO FALL ON IT ! = LARGE BUDGET BOOST (But you have to land on the moon on a time-frame or the mission restart) - Alternative : Several missions offer you enough freedom and budget to do whatever you want on the Mun or Minmus. EDIT : Alternative 2 : The budget boost (unlocked along the tech tree) is definitive, but you have to go on the moon to have enough science to go further away later. Phase 4 : [medium budget] [medium energy source] [medium science] (the gameplay still don't allow you Duna with the part you have) - You prepare whatever you want for later using the budget you have - You start building space station for whatever reason you have [Mission] Coincidently a mission ask you to put [whatever count as a space station] in orbit = reserve money for any project [Mission] Create better re-serviceable satellites, with more precise orbit, fuel-station, a shuttle able to send a crew of 8 to the Moon Phase 5 : [medium budget] [medium energy source] [strong science] (death penalty get higher, public relation) - You have the technology to go anywhere, but the price of those technology make a manned-mission costly as hell - Coincidently you can reach interesting technology if you do unmanned science first. [Missions] Suggest you where you can do science, you are free as to how to overengineer it. - The game incite you to send "BIG science module" to any planet of the solar system. [mission] Suggest you to redo more science by going back where you went with better sensor. [mission] Do a manned mission on the surface of any other planet, massive budget increase. Phase 6 : [high budget] [strong energy source] [strong science] Golden Age begin. Things start to get very challenging. The game "End" when you gained enough science for all technology ever.

It inspire me a system where you have to send probes equipped with the "Gravioli-detector" to be able to plan maneuver in another SOI. Expected gameplay : 1) At first you only know Kerbin's Gravitational parameter. Maneuver node work here. 2) You don't know Mun's / Kerbol Gravitational Parameter. So you can't see the predicted trajectory inside its SOI. 3) You send a probes equipped correctly, once in there it give you science and unlock maneuver node. 4) This sensor become the standard load-out of any probes. Expected result : - You are limited to Kerbin's orbit at the beginning, then Mun/Kerbol, then you can plan interplanetary travel. - You are encouraged to make probes. - It only ask at most for as many probe as celestial bodies. Possible continuation : - SOI interception don't show up either, your trajectory act as if there was no planet/moon around. - You cannot know the effect of an atmosphere on your trajectory unless you land a Barometer there. (this is if the developers give us this tools someday) Alternative : - The quality of the on-board computer determine the number of SOI change it can predict. ==> Expected result : Making it hazardous/expensive to try to go to Duna too soon.

I would be fully satisfied with what they plans for 0.23 which sound quite a lot by the way. Good luck Devs !

I think discussing IVA navigation in 3D is going way overboard for little benefit. On the other hand I really like the pathway "code only" idea which sound easy to accommodate into the game. Working on a structured IVA navigation might lead up to limited-EVA fuel and other IVA gameplay idea. (ex : manned science module, infinite life-support module)

Already listed on the "Already suggested list" and part of the "What not to suggest ?" thread Please consult those threads before making a new suggestion.

Please, you don't realize how every game rely on substantial amount of arbitrary restriction. It's one of the building-block of video game !! It's like fearing a linearity that haven't been heard of since the invention of video-game ! There's nothing wrong with "have something keeping you from Scott Manleying Career mode in 1 hours or reach Duna before landing on the Mun". It's just common sense. Nobody is defending an invisible barrier at the limit of Kerbin's SOI or forcing player through a succession of timed-mission not allowing them to reach Duna. The debate came from the argumentation that absolutely no form of guided-progression should ever happen, which question the whole point of a tech-tree, budget limitation, science system and finally Career mode. There's players who would like for KSP to be like Minecraft. So to work with this analogy : if Sandbox is Creative mode, then Career would be Adventure. And all Minecraft player know there's a frigging lot of arbitrary restriction making this mode interesting.

Well, I think we are in agreement anyway Regex. You fear a very badly made sort of strictly-mission-based gameplay that isn't in the spirit of KSP anyway, and I'm just criticizing your naive phrasing of the benefit of no-constraint-ever in game design, even if my English isn't perfect either. You make some choice or it wouldn't be a game (interactive) But I see nothing bad/annoying at considering yourself like a "Private" Space Agency working with governmental found (we have example) as long as you do a frankly very very reasonable amount of interesting contract (mission) as part of what a Space Agency is expected to do. SpaceX wouldn't fare long if Elon Musk put all the budget into a manned flight to Mars for the benefit of nobody, and was outraged to be required by "the system" to actually offer Space Launch service. And again this is NOT going to harm the game anymore than a badly-made "sandbox career" where one can trick the game for reward in a non-fulfilling way because he didn't wanted to be constrained by fail-safe game mechanic. Our world is so egocentric nowadays, I swear someone will want a Mario Game where Mario is free to NOT save the princess, or a strategy game where you are free to win by loosing every battle. And there's maybe something to say about "hard gamer" ashamed about the idea of not CRASH-TESTING new player into a wall until they like the game.

Why would you ? Surely for the same reason you don't jump from "invent a wooden wheel" to "invent composite Nerva-engine" ? And because it make sense ? edit : it roughly fall down to how many flights for how long game-time completing career-mode will take, and where do the progression end. Glad you heard of the "Prestige" idea because I like it. Just to be clear : Would you consider a budget limitation "organic design" ? Because being limited in budget because you need to show results is also to be considered part of the game mechanic. Same for requiring field testing which -following your logic- would be a freedom-killing mission. On this note I wouldn't mind needing to accomplish a launch-return flight (transparent mission) using tech I want unlocked. Here is what I read until now : - Some don't want to grind money/prestige or in fact do anything for funding. - Some want all unlocked parts to be accessible forever in any quantity (yes I read that) - And some don't even want to be asked to do science or anything unrelated to their own objectives. Problem : What the hell does it leave ?! Adding all this together, you expect to be funded/gain prestige, to advance the tech-tree, gain science, doing nothing but having the prospect of going to Mars. It's like Mister the President ordering "Send a manned-mission to the surface of Mars !" without wanting to hear about "development cost" and "field testing". The fact that parts for a big-budget Mun-mission would allow a Duna-Direct landing-and-return is certainly a problem too. We are all used to a sandbox where Kerbun-life and time-warp cost nothing, because it made it easier when you had nothing to do. So sometime I wonder if the Developers will end up building a life-support system just to keep you around Kerbin. As part of what you accept : an "organic game design". Don't go patronizing, I had a mobile based on Duna, I explored the Joolian system with Man and probes, same for Eeloo, all of them got back and it was aimlessly. Don't get mistaken you are wandering around aimlessly, this is a video game so you can't claim to be exploring anything since the code-source of the Kerbal-verse is known, neither developing tech since all technology is accessible and have fixed-specs. Again I wouldn't mind needing to "upgrade a part". In conclusion : I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here and you understand that whatever you do in Career-mode will have to be guided as a gameplay experience. You are just stuck in the belief that rules are bad and that more freedom make better game (which is very false). Obligatory Mission can(do for me) fit seamlessly into a Space-Program because it make sense and it's credible. The head of the Apollo Program didn't say "Hell with that ! I want to go to Mars, give me budget !". Lastly, I can think of semi-guided progression with obligatory prestige mission and field-testing that can still allow you to "progress" by focusing at 80% on a single planet. Understandable, you were already answering someone else.

The problem regex is that having a minimal amount of "script" is certainly the only way you'll have a space program that "make sense" unlike what you claim. How launching the equivalent of a 1000tons Manley-powered mothership to Duna before you even reached the Mun could make "more sense" than (example) being tightly restricted in budget until you have managed to manage more and more complicated mission ? Funnily, putting all this together make it feel like someone disappointed by our pansy space agency without the gut to colonize Mars and burst through technological limitation along the way. But seriously, if you want a WAY more coherent tech-tree and budget-system than from beta-career, the developer will need some leverage on you. Leverage like the "RemoteTech" you quoted (although its a mods). This is a mods that Coerce/force you to launch satellite, satellite which have a cost, must be "justified" to whoever fund your "space program" (because we can't have infinite budget again and don't want grinding). I'm not in disagreement that everything you ever launch shouldn't be mission-based. I'm just outraged by the implication that the goal of guided progression would be to prevent you -personally- from having fun. Plus Career mode shouldn't be a watered down sandbox (yes) where you roam around aimlessly without doing anything relevant other than "winning point". And let's not forget newcomer, those who don't know yet what an orbit is. It doesn't matter if you believe to be capable of managing the program all by yourself. Because it would still be like a Trial and Error Gameplay which is a horror of the past, as you shouldn't need to ask on the forum or suffer through a context-less tutorial. In short : Career-mode is the occasion to turn a wacky exploding-rocket assembly game into a tales of engineering prowess leading to mind-blowing accomplishments echoing through history. "That's one small step for Kerbal. Wait ! its more like one giant leap, the gravity if funny here." I really find this question funny because a space program can't rise from nothing. Unless you are both a rocket-engineer and the despotic-ruler of Kerbin. And I think it's irrelevant, following a Career you expect to live an interesting history of rocket-science, including the up and down (success and budget cut) Would a down phase (after Apollo) where you are highly encouraged (coerced) to use cost-efficient probes really be bad if it's followed up by a new Era of manned exploration ? Most good game have up and down making the game more immersive.

I'm no developer but that's quite a good feedback. You seem to know already that KSP is a game in constant development, but yes, the tech-tree will certainly change radically. Money haven't been implemented, "mission" have been mentioned. Myself I also try to remind others that newcomer shouldn't be expected to be certified-astronaut or even know what "orbital mechanic" mean at all. Amongst everything you said, an info-sphere, guided-progression and an interactive mission-control sound interesting. But I won't say more, this thread shouldn't become a suggestion one. I hope this feedback help the devs.

I disagree with you allmhuran, terminology is important. Grinding (money) describe being forced to redo in loop similar missions to gain finite amount of consumable resources. Needing to explore biome to gain Science isn't grinding as the science-point and (as of now) tech-tree are unlocked for good, even if there's biome left. end goal doesn't necessarily apply to mission-based progression, the end goal of career mode could as well be to unlock all tech and have little to do with exploration. Non-repeatability in a game is best accomplished as part of a semi-guided progression where you are given constrain at first (less tech) and then bigger challenge with newer tech. The opposite is not being able to afford some tech because you need to grind for money again. Then there's thing that can only be done with scripted progression. like rescue mission, you can't be rewarded for that if the game can't tell if you didn't staged it yourself. or building particular ship you would have no need for yourself (many sort of satellites on very original orbit). You realize that you are asking the developer to deliberately ignore how a space program is funded in any credible way with the crazy prospect of going to Duna exclusively ? Are you asking a sandbox mode where budget and tech-tree evolve in a way totally independent from player's actions ? Or something that can be maxed out at moment notice ? Actually I meant that I would accept FTL or any sort of magic as long as it doesn't break the game. Since I have fun building things I would also have fun with an anti-grav/FTL device as long as it's not just "handed to me" before the very end when I got bored of everything else. I wouldn't mind your beam-sail concept either ... if it was actually possible.

I really can't understand that fear of "railroading". What the point of a "non-sandbox" gamemode if you refuse anything but a sandbox without objective nor constraint ? Sandbox will stay and if career mode is going realistic it would follow both : - The law of market, you can build a rocket and people pay you to do it. - Government founded program, you get a budget, and objectives so vague you are basically free to do whatever you want. It's win-win. So what do you fear ? Horror ! The first one will give us a purpose for satellites and actual challenges to met ! I may fail and I feel my destructive-creativity sucked away ! Horror ! The second one will ask you to do thing you would do anyway, give you more money than taxpayer will ever see and won't ask how you do it ! The game is ruined ! Ruined Forever ! And imagine the worst ! Adding some Mission-Control to help people who haven't been trained with Orbiter (like me) may deprive you from your right to brag about how good you are ! It may even make KSP likable for newcomer. We can't let KSP become a vulgar mainstream game ! Drat ! Then we have to take out all the engines of the game, nearly all reentry-capable parts, huge-deltaV-EVA, infinite-life-support, latencyless communication, all planet, all moon, all... everything in facts. And it mean we can't have your totally unrealistic 99,999999% efficient beam-sail that wouldn't be useful anyway because of the gigantic infrastructure required ! Just joking. I don't want gamebreaking magic if it can be avoided.

You can't know how much I disagree with you. Unless I misunderstood you and you meant it in a specific way (like : spec upgrade going from 50% to 100%, or/and against 100% to 200% ?). My view on the "upgrade-idea" is that real engine tech DO get better and better, but as I doubt the Developers would create parts only meant to become obsolete an efficient solution is to reuse the model and upgrade their stat from -say- 50% to 100%, at which point they reach "physical limitation" and you'll need an entirely new technology. This, to avoid the following : - The real Mercury program already had micro liquid-engine and decoupler. - In KSP, as you can't unlock micro liquid-engine and decoupler until way later, it force you to attach a small and light capsule to a big 100% efficient LV-T30.

Should be short and straightforward. What I wouldn't like : - Grinding endlessly for money/science to finance our missions. - A disregard for realistic evolution of the Tech-tree (I wouldn't mind needing to upgrade the parts themselves) Edit : - a disregard for FTL very late implementation as a balanced gameplay mechanism (if necessary why not ?).

Be aware that KSP is NOT going to become an Economy/Management Game where you mine space-resources and craft rocket with it or even sell those resource. It have already been said over and over. In fact I pretty hope we don't have to do anything like "Grinding Money" to finance mission. There's also the fact that KSP cannot deal with simultaneous mission, even if simulated. It would also be hard for the computer to follow. For Autopilot. The Developer said it would be something you ask the crew to do. How ? I have no idea. And I'm fairly sure it will not totally negate the possibility for a very costly Mechjeb-like module as a technology to develop very late. Personally I don't need one for more than executing burn, although Mechjeb ability to calculate atmospheric-drag for a perfect landing have been very useful. I've seen people who seem to be against the idea of railroaded mission asking you for example to JUST put a man into orbit like an historical-reenactment rather than letting "good player" build some Gamebreaking ScottManley-rocket right from the start. Personally I'm for the idea of railroaded mission, so obviously (for the balance) any form of autopilot would have to be limited, costly or context dependent.

All this really only matter if we want actual Lagrange Point -which require N-body math- or if we accept simplification for the sake of Gameplay. Some earlier post here said (and proved) that KSP's Celestial Bodies wouldn't be stable on the long run if their orbit were actually calculated. Any solution the Developers come with will certainly keep satisfying the following point : - Eternally Stable Orbit (as the devs said nothing wrong must happen unless it's provoked by the player) - Enough Time-Warp to go anywhere of importance - No needless calculations which doesn't serve the game. Would N-body orbit really be worth it ? I don't know. For the eternal question of Lagrange point... If we go with gameplay-oriented simplification/cheat, I know at least two unintended consequence with the idea of "fake gravity well" acting as Lagrange point. - It give a misleading idea of what they are, but you could just call them "Kergrange Point" or something. - They will systematically interfere with any trajectory passing trough their SOI and for multiple-moon Jovian System it would certainly pose problem. But you are not forced to put "Kergrange point" at place it would be unstable anyway.

Ah yes, the problem of money. Someone proposed a very interesting "Prestige" based budget. The idea was to avoid "grinding" with a thousand "fetch" or "do" missions just so you can finance your mission to Mars or pay your earlier failures. Why would we need both Quantity and Price ? I don't believe in an eternally Open-KSP where the player is given all liberty as to what to do and how to do it "as long as he work for it". That's BAD game-making to me. Even Minecraft don't overdo it. A game like KSP can profit a lot from some sort of railroading that probably just haven't been incorporated yet. If only because of technological consistency. You just can't eternally let Scott Manley land on the Mun on the 1st career flight. In my opinion Career mode shouldn't even let you achieve orbit with an unmanned probe before a few technological-step flights regardless of how good you are. The objective is not to limit the player's creativity, it's to enhance the gaming experience, feel part of an actual space program which is so far only enforced by the fear of not having brought enough DeltaV for our objective. This is where Quantity and Price can become efficient balance parameter. We've seen that with a Tech-tree alone you can't keep one from building a game-breaking rocket. - With Quantity you could -for example- control the quantity of "Science" per mission without restricting the technology available. - With Price, you could -for example- balance the number of high-efficiency technology without enforcing a part limit. See it in term of "allocated budget". You build it how you want it... but you must do with what you have. You are not even forced to use those parameters constantly, the real world also work around "DeltaV budget" and "Weight to Orbit". So far I've talked about keeping hardcore player on track, but what about the newbies ? It work just the same, if not better. There is a lot of new player who -given unlimited budget and parts- didn't realized that you can achieve orbit with very little and keep pilling up rocket and fuel tank in the hope of going high enough for gravity to "stop pulling them back". - With a clear mission but quantity restriction, you give them the assurance they can do it simply with what they have. - With available technology but Price/budget, you guide them to what the best parts do and how to use them.

Am I the only one wondering how he could have a space station in orbit and not know what is a stable orbit ?

I would explain the current inadequacy of the Tech-Tree by the way it unlock technology rather than make it evolve. At the start of the Mercury program you already had micro-rocket engines and weren't forced to use a big "rockomax LVT-30". In fact, they lacked such powerful engine. I have nothing serious to suggest, but I think this point should change. Rather than unlocking Tech, most -not all- tech would be already unlocked but would only have (for example) only 50% of their efficiency/thrust/else. Putting some "science/engineering" in it would raise it to 75% then 100% at which point you need new technology. And you would be able to send unmanned test vehicle BEFORE you can make manned mission. Unlocking manned capsule only if the probes made it back. As for the Science-based Career-mode... I think it should go objective based, a screen would tell you what science you haven't done yet, the Science Value LEFT (as in, you can't spam EQUAL experiments on the same flight). But remember how each piece have a price ? Maybe there will be something like a "budget restriction" limiting the size of the rocket and the number of science-parts aboard a vessel (+ something to keep you from launching several times the same mission). Career mode is REALLY in its infancy, don't forget that. Maybe there isn't half of the balancing mechanics.

If it give any inspiration here is how I would see the Part catalog. If the part is -usually- for 1m diameter --> (1) on the icon If the part is for 2m diameter --> (2) Else no symbol Compatible or interdependent parts would share a color. (ex : liquid-fuel (blue) solid-fuel (red) nuclear (yellow)...etc) *** PROPULSION TAB *** <Fuel Tank> - Xenon tank with another icon color - No RCS here unless there's mono-propellant "main engine" <Rocket engine> - Include Solid-booster, Xenon Engine & Nuclear Engine with different icon color *** CONTROL TAB *** <Attitude control system> (include RCS-thruster And mono-tank) Those wouldn't change much <Aerodynamic> would include Jet-intake & Jet-engine-nozzle <Structural> would include landing gear. *** PROPULSION TAB *** <Electric Generation> for Generator & Storage system only <Miscellaneous> or subcategory for anything else *** MISSION TAB *** <SCIENCE> <Resources> or the full acronym of ISRU <Core> for parent-node parts

Asymetrical design is very very hard. I recommend you to start with more classic design. or putting the spaceplane at the front of the rocket.

Do you know that to switch ship you have to use a special key ? Look at the key biding

You don't have to clear anything, I know you claim to be a material engineer since the very first time you presented this idea. But you have Tunnel Vision and the things we are talking about cannot be turned into "fact" without several teams of multidisciplinary engineers. I know I'm not writing several page of carefully worded argument for a 16 years old religious kid with delusion of grandeur. I'm doing that for a overly optimistic engineer with delusion of grandeur. If you want my pedigree I'm a Aeronautic/aerospace engineer specialized in electronic and informatics. But it barely make any difference in a discussion like this. Common sense do and in my opinion you are failing big time. I don't believe to be making much assumptions, but I think you are. You are the one claiming to know more about the feasibility of something than a world of engineer just because you read a paper you liked. Don't waste your time demonstrating me how you fairly analyze them and just check how you did it until now. You meeting a leader of the Icarus project don't change anything. Zubrin, Musk, I've heard engineer say the darnest things because they know perfectly it is just a cool guideline unrepresentative of what they are actually trying to achieve. You might want to check out the Dunning–Kruger effect As for me. I'm just pointing out how little you encompass the scale of what you talk about. I do have some "belief" but I'm not acting like mine matter more than yours. Now I'll try to avoid some Kessler QUOTING syndrome. And once again, like everything else we ever discussed you refuse to accept that there's more to account for actual feasibility than what you saw. There's more to an A/M thruster than just putting two particle in contact. If you want to talk prerequesite, reality is demonstrating right now that VASIMR came out before "mastered Nuclear Fusion", and nothing say it make matter/antimatter thruster feasible before. "When all you have is a hammer, everything start looking like a nail" (if you see what I mean), knowing what graphene do don't nullify all other field's problem or make 0.5C Beam-sail probes less than science-fiction (over a 50y timeframe). Just like Fusion-spaceship is still SF regardless of what graphene could do to help it come true. You are not using facts, you are claiming the facts you found make your own made-up facts truer. But you are asking for more blackbox. The majority of what you ask for isn't comparable or compatible with KSP's basic gameplay. And more importantly not manageable humanely without help. To give you another example of things you'll need to put in your suggestion : Would the throttling of a Beam sail-ship be based on the efficiency of its sail, or the power beamed by the laser ? How to deal with several laser at different location ? How to control the gliding ?...etc You seem to be acting like blackbox is bad, but it's a fondamental building block for video game (and it take time to program) To be clear, the simulated chemical reaction is a game-mechanic, not a blackbox. A blackbox would be Maneuver Node and orbit prediction. It have everything to do with it, why do you think the warp system put everything on rail ? I'll be using false number here (to explain) but you cannot calculate simultaneously the position of several objects 100 000 000 km away and position them to the millimeter, which mean numbers high up to "100 000 000 000 000" if not just the computer but also the engine can't deal with number that high. And that was mostly for performance, there's more problem with game-mechanic : Around 15 years ago video game had little to no physics engines, just compare Half-Life 1 and 2. Meaning that if a game engine DON'T allow something, you have to make concession, play pretend, simplify water as frictionless gelo. So please don't answer me "my proposal don't ask for anything impossible" (dodging the point again) because the point is you just don't realize how much you ask. Anyway, If you are going to make a thread later then let's wait and let this thread fade away. No, weaving the cable only change the cable theoretical limit we already talked about. It doesn't solves all of the many other problem I mentioned. Didn't you read what I wrote ? [sarcasm]Oh yes you are right ! Why would I use other metal than CNT or graphene, oh silly me ![/sarcasm] -> you are being stupid. On airplane we count each gram needed to attach/wield two piece together and the material its made of. This is not because "airplane are made of aluminum/carbon fiber" that they are only made of it. Here we are talking of 32 000 km of any other stuff. Yes the "payload" weight will be insignificant but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking of the weight of the Non-stress-bearing equipments all along the tether in comparison of the weight of the stress-bearing CNT. If you need 80% of CNT to support safely the 20% of equipments, and said equipment have a high minimal weight then it can change the feasibility from "nowhere soon" to "impossible with this technology" I did searched how debris and radiation can be mitigated, and also if those solutions are reasonable, so far they aren't and create more problem than they solves. You realize how far we are in this discussion ? I just said the concept of space elevator was far less feasible that people (like you) make it out to be and you keep trying to convince me that its "not impossible". I agreed it was possible ! When are you going to admit you can't think of everything ? That's one of the rare thing you said actually 100% right since the start of our discussion. Yet a bridge don't get built when we know they have single-point catastrophic failure, like most concept of space elevator.

I was hoping I could write this as a PM but it's 2 times the maximum length for PM. I hope nobody mind us raising the topic again for our little debate. There again, you keep focusing only on a tiny bit not representative of global feasibility. And look at what you are saying : - You know we never actually built a thruster-grade anti-matter/matter system. (example : capable of more than a few particles, and propel reactive mass) - You know that we are actually testing in space a fully functional VASIMR thruster. Yet, you are okay with implying that VASIMR ask for A/M-thruster as a prerequisite ? First, its the reverse, then it's not just the lack of "fuel". Just containing anti-matter efficiently and on a large scale ask for several breakthroughs (I shouldn't need to precise that, but you are a slippery guy), handling the nuclear reaction ask for other breakthroughs...etc And you ask the point, there's so many points I can't seem to make you understand that I'm loosing track of them. - One point was that you had to stop quoting context-less numbers as crystal-clear proof of feasibility. - The following one was that since KSP is ultimately a game, actual feasibility matter less than gameplay. I could squeeze a point that you keep being slippery. - The latest point is that technological breakthrough are quite rare, very limited, and looking at history never really what we hoped for. And before you say it, be both know informatics only lived up to the hype because story-writer and media lacked sense of scale (like you) and preferred human-touch. We still don't have the soft-AI promised by SF. Graphene and CNT do miracle on the micro/macro-scale, yes, but Megascale is something different of many magnitude. No no no, I said the BEAM-SAIL GAMEPLAY is -I quote myself- "unfeasible in the game (which slide to impossible easily) because of multiple both balance & game-engine limitation" JUST "Ignoring physics" is easy as hell, THAT'S HOW THE WARP SYSTEM WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE ! (and your mind is apparently capable of ignoring whatever I say) The thing is : Ignoring ALL physics is not what a beam-sail gameplay need and even less the only thing, as you implied right there. For a Beam-sail gameplay we'd need to recalculate our trajectory during the entire cruise following several parameters while making the whole thing playable (as in : actually having fun with it, not just making it work) which is what I do consider impossible... ...unless you simplify (as ever) the gameplay so there's no energy fluctuation, no loss of acceleration when steering, no shadow, no change of vector outside warp (the slightly more evolved maneuver node) and most importantly no actual need to control the sail-ship during its warp-cruise. I'll also remind you that Brachistochrone-transfer are also prone of overshooting the target easily if you don't give tool for the player. Yes you can theoretically calculate it and create a glowy bar showing when you can start using your "breaking sail" (which again suppose a lot of simplification) anyway we are talking of a lot of work here for the developer, a whole new gameplay and interface. Keep in mind that I NEVER said it was impossible to code, just that it sound too much trouble to integrate in this game. And yes the Unity/Physics engine are limited. Why do you think there's so many "64 bits support" (and "multi-threading support") thread ? It's because regardless of the speed of the processor the size of the number used matter a lot for both speed and precision. Yes you can say "f*ck you" and tell everybody they just need a "real PC" but that's not how you create a game. And remember than the Developers didn't created the engines themselves so they can't make it "tailor-made", you need to make some concession. So, let just conclude that you won't convince me before a modder do create that fun beam-sail gameplay and also manage to keep it balanced with stock thrusters... And not just the easiest parts that can't represent the full thing. He's still underestimating how low he'll reach you know, and yes maybe he will become the "best", especially since there's not a lot of competitor, none if he DO manage the re-usable part. I'm not claiming he won't achieve anything, I'm proving you that there's a big gap between what can be done in a 10-50 years time gap and what one promise for media coverage or in a very-limited-with-lot-of-assumptions feasibility-study. The next hype may be this one : http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/13/microsoft-founder-announces-spaceflight-company-promises-airport-like/ And I told you that you that it have to be "flawless" all along the 32 000km, the quality control have to be extremely tight and still won't help if the tether is damaged by anything after it. Weaving the cable in different ways won't solve everything. Since the tether will certainly be in several parts you also have to check if the wielding won't be a weaker point. Even theoretically it would work only if the weight of the CNT was the only thing you need to support which is unlikely unless you can somehow work with only the tether/ribbon weight and strictly no added mass and necessarily-heavier metal. Basically you have to hope you'll never need a continuous stream of equipment along the cable. This point get critical even if, for safety, you use several ribbon/tether all capable of supporting the weight of an entire-ribbon (unless you can "decouple" the entire tether) but also the equipment-load, all in the safety margin. And let's not forget about space debris ! You'll also need some way to make the tether avoid them, constantly, don't you think ? Then nobody will be willing to jeopardize the whole project because several month of radiation deteriorated the cable beyond the safety margin, so you'll need to replace either an entire ribbon or part of it. Supposing we used 1km long parts, add 32000x the weight of the attach system, 32000x the weight of whatever allow another tether to support the weight (which will increase a lot following the geometry) Lastly you have to make it cheaper than conventional rocket which can be replaced easily. This is why I consider the space elevator "impossible" for as far as we can plan today. Yet the WTC wasn't supposed to crumble even "losing a few struts", are you assuming that a space elevator will be as thick and as redundant than the WTC ? I don't need to check for Resilience vs Toughness or several other criteria to know a small tether/ribbon may not resist either a collision with the hardest component of a airplane or the sheer inertia applied on a small area, just a chock wave can break something. Are you starting to see my point ? This is not because you believe to have solved one problem that you solved any relevant problems. We lost a lot of thing against things we underestimated. We lost bridge because we didn't believed the wing could make it resonate, I've seen how you needed to wrap a cable in helix around bridged-tether so the ice and wind don't wear it. What was my argument "against" (trusting) Zubrin, The need for orbital infrastructure first ? Anyway, a Moon space elevator would be easy as hell compared to Earth based one, so if we have problem just with that...

AngelLestat we never seem to be talking about the same things, and I'm sure my english isn't the problem. First, yes you are being desperately optimist over the theoretical vs practical efficiency of beam-sail. by the way : we don't have the technology for 70% efficients antimatter/matter thrusters, you are talking out of our ass, and we certainly WON'T have one usable on a spaceship before long. BUT THIS IS NOT THE POINT ! Stop mixing real & game arguments. Second, I'm saying it's unfeasible in the game (which slide to impossible easily) because of multiple both balance & game-engine limitation and try to explain them to you, although I could just wait until you make a suggestion thread and let mod-developer tell you how impossible it is. Maybe you'll believe them. I'm not ignoring him. I agree with the idea that VASIMR isn't needed to go to Mars soon, I don't agree with him that it's a sort of conspiracy against manned-mission to Mars (which have already been attempted & failed several times, because we don't have the technology). The fact that Zubric is a pioneers-spirit fan is only an indicator that he may be a dreamer or hypocritical. Just like say : Elon Musk when (under)estimating the cost and efficiency of SpaceX reusable rocket program. The "politic part" I want to avoid is the debate about whenever or not we "need" a manned-mission to Mars. Do we need a costly propaganda operation to inspire...what ? That our economy isn't plagued by irresponsible misuse of both public and private money in this era of economic-crisis ? (please DON'T actually answer to that, it's out of topic) At the end it's systematically a debate about wherever or not we should let Engineer-Moses lead us to promised space land. For starter because you still have to "steer" the things which require at least a center of mass/thrust, then because you won't have a constant acceleration in all flight configuration unless..... unless you simplify so much the system that like I told you it will be no different from a "black-box" (in a metaphorical sense) which do everything for you. And I told you you would be forced to oversimplify it. Yet you still don't recognize that you are asking for more change than you though, it's not just the engine by the way but also the very control&navigation system as you are trying to fit a brachistochrone-gameplay in a game with fixed-maneuver node. It does, I insist, you need at least 90% of its tensile strength, and you'll need redundancy as in "One space debris of any size should not be able to cut the tether to the point it can't support it own weight". In short : "Security Margin". Oh and I don't understand how you can think an airplane crash at any speed isn't a problem when airliner brought down the World Trade Center. Then Space Elevator fan always like to assume you'll be able to climb easily on a vertical and smooth cable carrying "enough weight" for it to build itself, but what if there's no climbing system which doesn't damage the cable ? The solution is frictionless maglev all the way, except that any mass added will demonstrate the tyrannic square-cube law, same for any security margin needed to avoid catastrophic cascade failures. And my google-fu brought this : http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0601/0601668.pdf, which is why we can't just believe popular optimistic assumption. I quote another site : "Carbon nanotubes have a few basic problems," admits Michael Laine, founder of would-be elevator builder LiftPort. "So you don't just need one breakthroughâ€â€you need six." As for dynamic launch structure, let's just say there's as much plan to build some of them as for a space-elevator. You can easily find rough-design for rotovator which could be used "soon" for a "low cost", Launch-loop are not useful enough to get worked on, and the orbital-ring (a megascale construct) may not actually end up useful at all. Nothing to add about the Magnetic-sail part. We are thinking of using magnetic-tether to deorbit space junk, but as ever I invite AngelLestat to not be oblivious about theoretical-feasibility over real-feasibility. I agree that small-scale science is rising with astounding speed, but it's no indication at all for MEGAscale engineering project.