KerikBalm

From my perspective, it would be great gameplay, and really fit into the KSP2 theme. A lot of KSP2 seems to be about using future tech, and setting up infrastructure. Beamed power checks both of those boxes. It would add a commnet-like gameplay mechanic as an alternative to using nuclear engines (which have a radiation mechanic). In both cases there is a gameplay tradeoff for the performance gains over chemical propulsion. Or.... you know... just throw in purple magic and have something that requires no infrastructure to operate, has no radiation concerns, and gets you superior performance to chemical and solid core NTR... [sarcasm]yea, now that I type that, never mind, that last one sounds like better gameplay than beamed power[/sarcasm]

Please tell me how much dV is equivalent to 1000 watts... I want to know

Imo, beamed power to get the performance of mmH is far less cheaty then mmH, as it requires the reactor somewhere nearby(not an insignificant undertaking), line of sight, timing your flights r establishing something like comm-net, adding a gimballing receiver to your craft, etc... Or you can just have mmH that magically stores all the energy that you need. Plus, a fleet of motherships with power beaming equipment could easily be turned into warships :p which is a cool thought.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#laserlaunch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion I'm wondering if KSP2's engine can support some kind of beamed power propulsion, and if so, could it be included in the game? Once you have a colony all set up, you could build a large laser or similar and use it to power a variety of drives that could equal or exceed various types of fission propulsion, without the radiation issue... Likewise, an orbiting mother ship could do beamed power for a lander. Just a thought, it would be nice to see.

I don't know what is going on with your area, but the vast majority of scientific papers do so. For reference, a paper we just submitted with 315 positive cases from our testing center, then mean Ct value was 22.5. Also note that Ct values cannot be directly compared across different tests and sample preparation methods. Furthermore, if you get tested early in the incubation period (as part of contact tracing), the PCR result may be negative (that is, not detected even after 40 cycles). There are two sides to a peak, and Ct<35 doesn't just detect "old" infections - granted that the slope at the start of the infection is steeper than at the end.

No, asymptomatic spread is definitely a concern. Children and youth still shed similar amounts of virus, and at least one stdy found asymptomatic transmission accounts for 44% of new cases: He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, Deng X, Wang J, Hao X, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nature Medicine. mai 2020;26(5):672‑5.

I disagree, if you want to launch 2 missions simultaneously, then its needed. Some of us care about how much time passes in game and want to do missions in parallel. Not focused or not, KSP1 doesn't allow acceleration on rails. The big improvement is acceleration on rails, and when its on rails, it shouldn't really matter if it is focused or not.

so... 86 seconds on the starship = 100 seconds back at kerbin, I don't consider that huge ... granted, in another thread I mentioned I'd set the cutoff for acceptably ignoring time dialation at a 10% difference which is 0.4c not 0.5c. Atomic rockets on the other hand uses 1%, which would be 0.14c http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight.php http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight.php At .99c though, then its going to make huge differences in terms of time elapsed for the crew, changing the level of life support they'd need by an order of magnitude

Personally, I've been to Dres more than Eeloo. Eeloo is boring. The terrain is more boring than Dres', and it takes longer to get to. At least in Dres I manage to get initial probes and relays to it before the next update drops or something. Eeloo... never been to once in career (always some other mission going on), only in sandbox. Moho I've actually visited more than Jool in career. While it may take a lot of dV to get there, the windows come frequently, and you get there fast.

I would disagree with your assumptions. I would assume a maximum velocity of around 0.1-0.2c (although 0.5 may be achievable if they have antiatter rockets, avoiding velocity faster than this also has the nice side-effect of making it Ok to ignore time dialation). Given the general 1/10th scale, I would expect the nearest star to be 0.45 light years, not 4.5. I would also expect maximum timewarp ot be at least 10x higher. So assuming 1/10th the velocities, 1/10th the distances, and 10x the time warp, the 20 minutes comes down to just 2 minutes... which seems fine to me. The standard KSP system is smaller with less bodies than our system. So if our system has 52 "nearby" stars, I would expect the KSP system to have less than 50. plus, >50 is a lot of work... So that's my speculation Yea... but it continues working fairly well up to about 4x, then the excessive mass and low tankage ratios really start to hurt. Well, even in KSP 1, procedural generation was used to generate the finer scale detail of planet surfaces (including terrain height, not just the cosmetic ground scatter). I imagine that KSP2 will still use procedural generation for fine scale detail, even if globally it is a custom made piece of art. So I hope larger scales work, because I plan on modding the KSP2 system from the start

I would also say it looks a lot like how Arma 3 handles grass Agree, industry standard now. Still its a very nice improvement. I had thought about suggesting stuff like this before, but I wonder if its worth the effort, since I don't expect any other planet to have vegetation. I wonder how this system can be used on "dead" worlds to add more fine detail.

Those were the first helos I built, and IMO the easiest to build. All copters I build are either quad copters (often tilt rotor quads), or coaxial rotors. Speed is slow for KSP... 50 m/s ain't bad for a real helicopter, but when you have rapiers to compete with, or even props getting you to 300 m/s, they seem slow

These graphics do look nice. They seem to exceed the latest version of ksp + visual enhancement mods, so, nice work.

To be clear. There has been only 1 paper suggesting metastability, and it wasn't really a prediction per se. http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_034_06_1300.pdf The article then goes on to consider those problems, and in the conclusion: and: Brovman 1972 never even really amounted to a prediction of substantial metastability. Brovman 1972 was speculation. Subsequent theories (as linked by @Entropian , and myself multiple times earlier in this thread and others) show that speculation was unfounded, and predicted it to be "wildly unstable". We now have 2 experiments that claimed to have made mH in a diamond vice, the latter being widely accepted, which showed no metastability. The first experiment, if it was successful, probably also showed no metastability judging by the sample loss. @The Doodling Astronaut as you can see, we can more definitevly answer your question of "I would love to know where the information for doubts of stability are" than a question of "I would love to know where the information for doubts of magic pixe farts are". Magic pixe fart engines belong in the game more than mmH engines. We have no reason to think they exist, true, but there is no evidence against them. In the case of mmH, we have no reason to think it exists, and we do have evidence against it.

Yup, that's why I said: "I would have preferred if he said "yea, it seems like it can't really work... but if it could, it would be perfect for our vision of the gameplay, so we put it in anyway" But as it is, his statement was objectively false." #1) I haven't demanded anything. #2) I'm not angry or aggravated, but disappointed. #3) I'm not questioning his artistic design choice. I'm questioning his objectively false statements contradicting facts. #4) He is on record saying that he is willing to have the conversation about the science behind it, yet he hasn't engaged in any conversation about it (at least not in any public forum). Making a factually incorrect statement is not an "artistic choice". The point of view that I've expressed is that it would be fine if he said it was included for gameplay purposes, but not scientifically accurate. I'm not fine with him publicly making factually incorrect statements, with ample time to issue a correction, and refusing to do so while pretending to be open to discussion.

No, one of those 2 options must be true. Any third option is as relevant as saying option 3: I have cookies with dinner tonight.... Totally irrelevant, and one of the two options is still true. He made a factually incorrect statement, it is objectively wrong, with no legitimate debate otherwise. Either he knew it was wrong, or he didn't. Its basic logic: either A or not A. Until he gives a sign that he knows his statement is wrong, the most generous conclusion is that the lead creative director for KSP2 doesn't know even the basics of what he is talking about - but this can be fixed with study. The other option (this is not an accusation, just a statement of fact) is that he intentionally makes false statements - which IMO, creates problems that cannot be remedied. So after making such a blatantly false statement, then saying that he is willing to have a conversation about it... the only thing that could restore my confidence in him is if he actually engages on the subject in a meaningful way, and shows that he is actually doing the research before throwing tech into KSP2... because so far he has given no sign that he has for mmH

I never said he had to, I am just saying that I am dissapointed that he didn't. He is on the record saying that he is willing to have a conversation about mmH, and he has made objectively false statements about mmH. For my part, I would be reassured if he just came out and admitted that he said something wrong, and that he's just keeping it in for gameplay. By saying nothing about it, then there are only 2 options: 1) he didn't know it was false and thus was misinformed and thus hasn't done proper research, or 2) he makes false statements, knowing that they are false. Both are not good. 1) can be remedied, but with no sign its remedied, makes me worry what other misconceptions have made their way into KSP2. 2) .... well, there is a word for a person that does this, and it starts with L... Not good either. So really the best outcome as I can see it is for him to show a sign that he is now properly informed, not doing (2), and just focusing on gameplay

Then such an environment would be very high radiation, and using Lantr, pebble bed ntr, nuclear lightbulbs, other closed cycle fission drive would work at least as well. Its just not needed, and the magnetic confinement vacuum drive is particularly egregious (just dilute with liquid h2, and have a high isp drive that works in an atmosphere too, but with less twr than the water diluted version)

Dissappointing that you continue not to address the science behind mmH and admit that you made factually incorrect statements. Also dissappointing that there are no mentions of competing propulsion like Lantr or air augmented rockets. After all, a deep gravity well means it should have an atmosphere (tylo being quite unrealistic). A water cooled mmH rocket would be outcompeted by a chemical air augmented rockets

Pre-breaking groune, i used retractable landing gear to raise/lower things until they snapped when the height wasn't quite right. After an update, even without BG, I could adjust spring strength to achieve that (though it may not work on gilly, if even the weakest setting is strong enough) With BG, I also did articulated arms with a docking port on the end. But I always built to a mk3 bay standard, with a 1.25m node attached docking port.

If you fire them back fast enough, just like with gravity, there will be an escape velocity and they wont come back. You will build up a massive positive charge on your ship though... Yes it is possible to make thrust with electrons. Yes batteries have electrons, so does your finger. Solar panels do not produce electrons, rather they can move those electrons. Batteries don't spit out electrons, they move them. Don't think of electricity as "electrons", think of it as a flow of electrons. Electrical generators are like pumps that move water. When the water isn't moving, it can't power a water mill. When it is moving, your water mill can spin.

ah.... well, 3 orders of magnitude changes things quite a bit then... That's 10 times the size of a nimitz class aircraft carrier. I don't think I need the ability to launch something that big... but the ability to build a ship/colong in orbit that is that big does seem like something that would be nice to have. I can easily see interstellar vessels exceeding this mass (their wet mass anyway)

1 kiloton is easy--- although we have to differentiate between launch mass and mass in orbit. 1 Kiloton launchmass is easy to manage, using the larges parts. Just 4 Kerbodyne S4-512 Fuel Tank will get you over 1 kiloton. This isn't a particularly large rocket, and its already nearly 700 tons (and recoverable) My SSTOs for 3x rescale were routinely around 1 kiloton on the runway before I switched to 2 stage reusable designs and shaved off 200 tons while not needing to use nukes. I made them so large because payload fraction at 3x is much lower, and I wanted to maintain the ability to launch >100 ton payloads with recoverable/reusable systems. When I tested my craft on 1x kerbin, I could do a single stage to jool intercept with a >100 ton payload, 986 ton starting mass. And similar chonky bois: If KSP2 runs smoother, then I see no reason that 1 kiloton (starting) craft won't make it to orbit (where they can refuel, and reach 1 kt again). I really really hope the supply runs to space colonies will be able to factor in supply runs with this mission architecture (done on 6.4x IIRC): Then I can even have relatively efficient supply runs on much larger scales. 2 stage reusable is not really worth it on 1x kerbin... is better than SSTO at 3x scale (but doesn't blow them out of the water in terms of payload fraction), and is much much better at 6.4x scale (though I mostly play at 3x scale, I say others doing 6.4x and wanted to see if my 3-4x 2 stage designs were up to the challenge, and they were). If such reusable multistage resupplies to orbital stations aren't modeled, I will be very disappointed.

I'm pretty sure that this is a revamped minmus. That smooth area on the left has the same general overall shape as one of the flats on minmus. It looks like a muhc more plausible minmus than the one of KSP

I wonder how this will work with re-usable/recoverable craft. I think its been said that we won't have "funds", but it does seem that we will need resources to build craft. Will it be able to tell that a SSTO was recovered and adjust resource costs accordingly? What about 2 stage recoverable vehicles, will it be able to adjust costs accordingly? This last point may be quite important for supplying an orbital colony above Eve, because SSTOs even with BG are really really really impractical. I've had much more success with 2 stage recoverables, and an even haul up cargo that way in a mid size mk3 cargobay. I'm really hoping that multistage reusables will work with their automated supply system, because they can bemuch more resource efficient (vessel size, propellant used) than single stage reusables.