GoldForest

Intercept plans on having multiple systems. 2 new systems is kind of low to be using that phrasing imo. I suspect we'll see at least 4 new systems, minimum. And if they are following IRL distances from planets, then that will make the plants spread out across 4 to 8 light years. So, the play area will have to be quite large indeed. And that's assuming they're even going to follow the distances IRL. They could jump around. They might make one of their systems over 20 lightyears away. We'll just have to wait and see what they do. And you're not going to go sub-mm with an interstellar craft. I think the Sub-mm is for landing craft only, so I wouldn't worry about a star being 150 Lys away. You're not going to get sub-mm with an Inertial Confinement Fusion Drive anyway, no matter the distance, even with RCS thrusters. The distance is just too great, and the calculations are going to get screwy that far. It just doesn't feel right to me to have a light-year redefined. Just feels, off to me. If Intercept does reinvent a lightyear definition, I'll accept it, but at this point we can only speculate and comment. Unless @Nate Simpson or someone @Intercept Games comes into the thread and comments about what they've done with a lightyear. I understand your point of view and see that A kerbal Lightyear would be actually kind of better, but at the same time, it goes against the universal constant. 1/10thing the distance of a lightyear to match in universe sizes does make sense. It would make travel easier, but at the same time, we have improved time warp, and we have acceleration under time warp, so really, distances don't matter in the long run. And if they 1/10th it, I guess they would have to 1/10th the speed as well. Hmmm... Still doesn't feel right to me. As for suspension of belief can happen in D&D because D&D doesn't have any set rules in their universe. KSP follows IRL rules tho, that's why it's hard to suspend belief. If KSP didn't, then it would be easier.

I'm just confused as to why you mentioned radio communications, when we're talking about lightyear distances. I doubt the play area is as little as 6 to 8 lys. They plan on adding several star systems. Deb Deb and To Be Announced are just the start. The play area would have to be 10s of light years if not at least up to 100 to 150. And really, the playable area could be stretched in definitely. Extrasolar does this for KSP 1. It adds a new star system a few lightyears from Kerbol. "Several" could be a handful, or it could mean 100s. In this case, it's probably safe to assume that several means well into the double digits, if not the triple digits. And you can use AU in KSP. It would just be that Kerbin isn't 1 AU from Kerbol, but instead 0.09 AU. Again, they didn't change the distances or their definitions, just the scale of things. A meter is a meter. A light year is a light year. A kilogram on Earth is a Kilogram on Kerbin. Etc.

You're forgetting one thing though, the thrust of the engines are nerfed to 1/4th of their IRL speed. So, Daedalus will effectively go at max speed about 0.012 of C due to this in the KSPverse. It still gives you your long coast time after you take that into effect. And as others have pointed out, you can't change the speed of light. It has a set definition and is a scientific/universal constant. KSP doesn't change what the size of a meter is, and seeing as light speed and the meter are kind of interlinked with each other, you can't change one without changing the other. You 1/10th the speed of light, you need to 1/10th the size of the meter.

Interstellar would probably require at least half the Military budget. Fusion technology is expensive and adapting a reactor to an engine would make it more so.

You can't really bring down the speed of light. It's a universal law, and KSP follows universal law. Why would you want to bring down the speed of light anyway? There's no real reason to. We'll never reach light speed is stock KSP, even with the Daedalus engine. You'll have to turn around and start burning to slow down before you even reach any large percentage of lightspeed, let alone the fuel requirements to take your ship to full 0.999999% of lightspeed. The IRL project Daedalus had two stages too, and would take a total of 3.8 years to reach 0.12 of C, then coast for 46 before doing a braking burn of about another 4 to 5 years. With acceleration during time zoom, that's nothing at any distance.

Interstellar ships don't fit in the VAB. You need and orbital colony with a space dock. Of course, but you can only do so much if they're limited to being placed on the ship itself. If we can place rads on on rads, then it becomes much more possible to get roughly the same shape.

Just going to leave this here. I think it fits the discussion very well:

You'll need colonies for interstellar flight. As for Firefly, I don't doubt they have a z-pinch engine, or at the very least hopefully Nertea will port over his Far Future Techs mod and you'll get it then. As for those radiators, hoo boy. That's a lot of complex geometry. Don't think we'll be able to make the tail end, not unless we can place rads on rads.

I can see fuel cells being handy for small mining outposts that would more than likely be temporary until the resources dried up. They would be cheap and not worth a lot, so once you abandon the base, it wouldn't be that much of a loss if you can't tear it down.

New challenge idea: Mk1 pod interplanetary challenge. You have to get a kerbal from Kerbin to Deb Deb or To Be Announced without them leaving the Mk1 pod except for life support needs if there are any. Hard mode: You have to get the Mk1 pod from Kerbin to another system, without self-replenishing life support (If it's in game.) That means no greenhouses and no food synthesizers. You also can't use cyropods if they're in game. Super hard mode: You have to make a return trip...

I've been wondering if explosions on the Colonial VAB pad will damage nearby structures for a few days now. It makes sense that they would. Even if it isn't a mechanic in game, I do plan on creatine a separate, or at least a distanced, launch facility from my colonies. As for your first interplanetary mission, it only makes sense to launch a mission from the Mun. Or better, Minmus. Get well outside the gravity well of Kerbin. Heh, not going to do the Mk1 pod to Deb Deb challenge?

So, spindly with pretty much everything you need? Also, that thing is huge.

You never know, they may decide to base KSP 2 lightyears off a Kerbin year. Developers have done crazy stuff before. I'm not saying it's a likely scenario, just saying it is one. So we could end up with 1 of 3 options for how far Deb Deb is from Kerbol: (Light year distance was taken from William Shoetz on Quora: (4) How many meters are there in 1.00 light-year? - Quora ) 1) 4 IRL Lightyears in distance = 9460730472580800 m x 4 = 37,842,921,890,323,200 m or 37,842,921,890,323.2 km 2) 4 1/10th scale lightyears in distance = 37,842,921,890,323.2 km / 10 = 3,784,292,189,032.32 km 3) 4 Kerbin Light Year in distance = 299,792,458 m/s x 60 x 60 x 6 x 106.5 = 689,642,570,383,200 m or 689,642,570,383.2 km x 4 = 2,758,570,281,532.8 km Those are all drastically different distances that will have to be covered. 3.8 trillion kms, 11 Trillion kms or 37.8 Trillion kms. That makes a huge difference, pun not intended. All of these are great distances and will show off a light year in game. I'm just wondering which it will be at this point. (Also, pardon me if my math is wrong, kind of just did some quick math) Edit: I did to 3's math wrong. I accounted for 24 hours in a day and not the 6 in a Kerbin day. Number has been updated.

Like the title says. I want to hear what you guys and gals have in mind for your crafts and colonies? Are you a minimalist? Will your interstellar ship look something more like the real Project Daedalus? Compact and small. Or are you a bring everything I need in one go person? Making a super long stick boy that has 2 of everything and requires an extra engine or two to get moving? Will your colonies be small and tidy, or will it look like New York City, a hodgepodge of towers of all different shapes and sizes? Or perhaps you're an industrialist and will make your colony look like it is an endless factory of pipes and tanks? I want to hear your plans, your realistic designs, your dream designs! Or, are they nightmare designs? Something that will make someone double take and be speechless, not in awe, but in shock at the horror you've built! Let them be known! Don't have a design in mind? That's fine! Comment on someone else's design, give feedback, or suggestions on how to improve them! My ideal setup: Interplanetary craft: Don't really have a design in mind. I'm a bring everything I can in one trip kind of guy though, so I expect my designs to be a cluttered mess. Interstellar craft: Again, bring everything in one trip, so I expect my designs to be long slender spires with several different craft attached designed for different focused purposes. Refining, resource collection, etc. Colonies: Now this one I'm a bit of a neat freak about. When I play city buildings, I like to separate the zones out and try to keep them somewhat tidy. So habitation will be on one side while refineries will be on another. Power generation I tend to put away from my cities, so I imagine I'll put those far from the colony as I can.

Apologizes, then. It came off to me as if you did want warfare in KSP 2 as stock. As for these 'experiences' being their own game, no, they can't. They are tied together. Except Warfare. You can't really have Interstellar without realism. You can't really have city builder without roleplay or realism. Warfare will never be a standalone game, as I mentioned before. Not an official spin-off game made by Intercept, Private Division or Take-Two at least. If a Kerbal Warfare Program game does get made, it will more than likely be by someone of the community. It doesn't fit the scope of KSP.

Warfare is not important part of the community. Imo, it's a small niche that a low percentage of KSP players enjoy. Just because it's supported by a widely known youtuber, doesn't mean it should be put into the base game. I will admit, some mods do deserve to be put into the base game, but those mods are ones that focus on Kerbal SPACE Program. Mods like Nertea's Near Future Tech mods, or his Far Future Technologies mod. Mods that allow interstellar travel. Interstellar has been the KSP mod scene go to for some time now, ever since planet packs and solar system packs became a thing. Intercept saw that people loved interstellar and decided to make it stock in KSP 2, something that focuses on the fun and PEACEFUL exploration of Space and Space Science. Warfare will never be stock in KSP because it doesn't focus on space, nor is it peaceful. It will remain a mod, forever. There is little to no chance of it getting put into KSP or getting made into a spin-off game based off KSP. I will reiterate: Mods do not make a game. Mods add to a game. It's fine that you like Warfare mods, heck, I like some of them too! But I understand that they are just mods and don't really fit the scope of KSP, and never will.

The problem is, we don't know what Intercept is using. It could be IRL Earth Light years. It could be 1/10th scale IRL Earth Light Years. It could be 4 Kerbin Light years. We just don't know. I personally think it's either the 1st or 2nd option. @Nate Simpson Said they want us to "know how long a lightyear actually is," so I think it will be either IRL or 1/10th scale.

Nimbus family! Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet Nimbus 1: Nimbus 3: Nimbus 5: Nimbus 7: And a bonus image of my cluttered map view, because why not.

Again, what is the point of exploring a cave? One or two of them might hide an easter egg, but really, caves are just a resource hog for other things that could need it. I admit, caves would be nice, but the cons are not worth the pros.

KSP 2 is 1 game with multiple aspects. C: KSP has never had Warfare and never will. Mods do not make a game. Mods add to a game.

I don't think it's that speculative, considering we have the basis for the technology today. Fusion drives - Literally just fusion reactors that have an outlet for the fusion reaction instead of containing it inside the reactor. Fusion reactors have been around since about the 50s/60s. They weren't power generators, but instead used to create new materials, but power generating fusion reactors are coming online in the next few years. In the near future, which is about 100 to 200 years, I'm sure someone will put a fusion drive on a space ship. Inertial confinement drive - Laser fusion reactors exist and have been tested for years now. The one in Germany (I think it's Germany) has fired several times and has proven it can create fusion. It wouldn't be hard to scale it up and allow the energy to propel a craft like Daedalus. Z-Pinch - I'll admit, I don't know anything about this, but from what little I've looked at, it seems to me that it's just redirecting the plasma from a fusion reactor into a narrow beam, which we've done already, though not with fusion plasma, but with hydrogen plasma. Scaling it up is just a matter of time and materials it seems to me. So, all these concepts have concepts that have been proven. I will admit, taking one technology and turning it into another is difficult and completely not the same, but with a little work, I'm sure all of these concepts could be produced, and would be practical. At least, more practical than other forms of travel, such as warp drives or colony ships or deep freeze ships. I think a ship using an inertial confinement fusion drive that will get us to Alpha Centauri in 5 to 10 years is a lot more practical than a ship that uses chemical engines that will get there in 100+ years. And I don't see that becoming inferior, not unless someone can make a warp capable ship.

A prerendered cinematic trailer is not indicative of gameplay, so it's not supposed to be taken seriously at all. I mean, they showed a kerbal fall on to the landing gear and it broke the landing gear. I doubt that will happen in KSP 2. If it does, I'd be actually both pleasantly surprised and disappointed. And the jump ramp can be seen in the photo in the OP. it's for planes/spaceplanes. Or are you talking about the big cargo truck jumping the ravine?

One thing I've been wondering about is if the placement of the VAB matters. Obviously, it does in the grand scheme of things, but I mean like, will we have to worry about the launching rocket's thrust damaging or toppling nearby towers, or if they forewent that challenge. It would probably be a difficulty slider if it was implemented. Also, anyone else notice that they have damaged support pillars in the picture there? The charred support pillars sitting in front of, what I presume are, the battery/capacitors? I wonder if/how that would affect everything. Like obviously, if bottom module gets destroyed, the upper ones will fall. But will it affect the neighboring tower?

True. The Daedalus Engine will probably have 100s of 1000s of ISP. Fusion drives will probably have 10s of 1000s.