KerikBalm

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.

So I looked more into it, They've also made superconducting (metallic) LiPH3/4/6/7 , and H2S. Those are some high MWs. Its really not getting any better as you look to heavier elements than lithium. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-019-0244-6 (don't go gaga over the mention of metastable: not it says "at high pressure", and in the context, its speaking of rearrangements from LiPH3 toLiPH4 or stuff like that). https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14964 metallic superconducting H2S at high pressure. They are looking into metallic combinations of Hydrogen with other elements, not as metastable rocket fuel, but as superconductors. Not a single one remains metallic when pressure is released. I can't find any predictions that they will.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. I linked to examples for lithium- the third lightest element. If it doesn't work with lithium, it only gets worse as you look for other metals to alloy with. I've been over this before mH would have a theoretical maximum Isp of 1700s. Hydrolox can get you a theoretical maximum of about 500s. So mH would get 1700/500= 3.4x more Isp. If you increase the MW by 3.4^2, and keep the exhaust temperature the same, then it will not outperform chemical rockets. That is an average MW of just 11.5. Now... Lithium has a MW of 6 or 7, you might say that this seems like a LiH2 alloy would work... except it won't. The temperature will be lower. Lithium is already in the metallic state. Even using the lighter isotope of lithium: Metallic LiH2 would be 3/4 lithium by mass. To a first estimate, your alloy is only going to store a bit more than 1/4th the energy per unit mass compared to mH. 1/4th the energy results in 1/2 the Isp... then you add in an exhaust with an average MW of... what, 3? You get 0.5 /sqrt(3) = about 0.29x the initial Isp. Which gives you 490s.. worse than chemical. Ok, what about LiH4? Sure, that will do better... but you remember how LiHx isn't metastable anyway, and going to higher values of x is only going to make it worse? Yea, you've got to move on.... and go heavier... and oops, its already not working with the lightest metal, its only going to get worse as you get higher. But sure... you can just have more hydrogens per atom of heavier element... but then you start to require a loooottttt of hydrogens, making you wonder how you expect a single atom of the other stuff to stabilize all that...

Studies have been done, and already discussed in this thread - back in July. All you had to do was use the search function. See what I mean about this being a pointless discussion. It only keeps going because people keep bringing up the same old points, with nothing new to add. Alloys have been made already, its easier to do than to make pure mH. Pressure required to form drops, but metastability has not been observed. Mote importantly, molecular weight of the exhaust goes up, and performance drops. No point in doing it even if it got you to metastability

If this is directed at my remarks of "misleading and innaccurate", I don't think I phrased it as an accusation of deceit. Its just a factual matter of the statements. It is misleading (whether intentional or otherwise) to state something is losing acceptence if it never had it. See this https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.04246 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05125 , and https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07192 all from Feb 2017, right after the Dias and Silvera paper. A statement of "[Dias and Silvera's] projections related to the lack of metastability are probably moot - not proven wrong, " is misleading (whether intentional or otherwise) when they made no such projections (see: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/715 ), they only mention metastability once in the body of the paper, which is to cite the Brovmen paper from 1972. Its not their projection, and its not a projection of a lack of metastability. The statement made (regardless of intent) was predicated one an absolutely false premise - making the statement misleading and innaccurate. Its an objective assessment. Following it up with a statement that 2019 observations behave as models predict (in a pro-mmh statement) is misleading if one leaves out that they observed no metstability, and that is what models predict. Likewise, to say the jury is out when the models don't predict it, an experiment is in agreement with the models, and it was shown experimentally to not be metastable, is highly misleading. You can argue that its not 100% disproven (hard-solopsism can be used to make that argument for anything), maybe they need to test at close to 0 K, or that they need to compress it even more first... or... but the jury is not really "out", its pretty conclusive with models saying no, and experiments agreeing with the models saying no.

There are no 2020 findings. That is a lay article from January about a research article from 2019, that had been discussed on this forum since it was available on a preprint server since june or july 2019. See below You mean nearly a year and a half old, already extensively referenced on the forumss They never had acceptence. Misleading and inaccurate They had no such projections in the 2017 paper. What are you talking about? Misleading and inaccurate The 2019 paper tested for metastability, and found none, as models predicted. Not really, the scientific literature since the 70's very much falls on the no significant metastability side, with only passing references equivalent to "but it would be great if it was metastable"

Well, obviously phase 1 modules are light enough to move around space practically. So the question is if you can deploy the modules as part if the ship carrying the phase 1 modules.

Yes, I know it was a shipyard. The question was why would you have a shipyard orbiting jool, as opposed to a low gravity moon in a shallow gravity well. Speculation was that jool should have He3 and H in abundance, the interstellar ICF drive should use He3 and/or isotopes of H. Coincidence that the shipyard is there? Speculation is that the station scoops H, or a smaller ship does, and automated supply run have been set up to the shipyard But can you put normal rocket parts on your colony, and adjust its orbit? Are those parts excluded from its palette?

My feeling is that "inflatable" modules are rather "deployed" modules constructed somewhere else. The assembled modules would be constructed by the colony from a reserve of raw material. Given that we will have supply routes, and orbital construction of large interstellar vessels, it seems reasonable that there will be oribtal assembly of new station/orbital colony modules from raw materials, which will probably be primarily supplied by automated routes. But... I do wonder if there will be space based collection scoops. We have probably all seen the large orbital station over Jool with an interstellar ship docked: speculation is that the station is collecting He3 from Jool's atmosphere. The ISS technically orbits earth in the atmosphere, if we use the Exobase as the limit for the atmosphere, and not the kamran line (which I think is a better way to define an atmosphere's limit). Regarding ships never meant to touch an atmosphere: we basically already have such ships in KSP. Dedicated Mun landers, Stations/ships assembled in orbit, etc. - launched in a fairing. The thing about all stuff launched from Earth, is that they have to be able to sustain at least 1 G along one axis. An interplanteary/steller only craft that can't do more than 0.3 G's can be built much lighter than anything launched from Earth. I hope that this is a factor in KSP2, and we can make ships that would collapse under their own weight on Kerbin. Then as to the line between space colonies and ships - I'm not sure there will be one. In KSP 1 you could build space planes in the VAB, and rockets in the SPH. Maybe the Building assembly editor(BAE?) ends up making things that aren't fundamentally different. My guess is that the BAE just allows you to deploy/construct modules (from available inventroy). The colonies apparently will have parts and physics modelling... so I could imagine that you can mix and match colony parts and rocket parts. Perhaps the large interstellar craft are made with a combination of rocketry parts, and colony parts, so you can just fly an orbital station to the next star (and already start refueling your He3 tanks from a local gas giant???) We will see. It seems interesting, as long as the engine and gameplay mechanics are solid, and its mod friendly (I will rescale everything by 3-4x right away), I can overlook/turn to mods to fix various scientific oversights by the devs.