Worried about KSP magic tech, unrealistic orbital mechanics, and lol-explosions

[KerikBalm]

22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

And finally, if they do make them that OP, it is the easiest kind of problem for us as players to live with -- simply don't design with them. So any way I look at it, from where I'm standing this is a non-problem.

By itself, it wouldn't be a big problem. An epstein drive at the end of the tech tree, by itself wouldn't be a big problem. Unrealistic binary planets (planet formation simulations show that binary planets are unlikely to form, a small size difference becomes a large size difference as the planetary embryos grow: 1:10 is fine with me, 1:1 is not) without at least 3 body physics, by itself, is fine.

Colonies, by themselves are fine.

Keeping the 1/10th scale with future tech/increased nuclear tech (orion drive), by itself is fine

 

But from the limited information I'm seeing coming, I see a lot of red flags being raised, and I have concerns over the direction the game is going from what I've seen.

I fear that the confluence of these factors will make the base game unpalatable to me, and it will only have value as a "platform"/ only mods will be able to save it for me.

[chaos_forge]

4 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

So any way I look at it, from where I'm standing this is a non-problem.

I mean, I don't think anybody's crying themselves to sleep over it. We'd just rather it not be in the stock game.

And it seems to me if the ISP of metallic hydrogen is around the same as LVNs, un-nerfing LVNs is probably a better solution. Then they could fill that same niche of "same thrust as methalox but moderately higher ISP" but with a mild mass penalty so they aren't strictly better in every single situation (just most).

And if you want fancier rocket engines, add some liquid-core or nuclear lightbulb style NTRs. At least those are theorically within the bounds of modern-day materials science.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I fear that the confluence of these factors will make the base game unpalatable to me, and it will only have value as a "platform"/ only mods will be able to save it for me.

You’re already playing with a 3x scaled mod system and Principia. It seems to me that unmodded KSP 1 is already unpalatable to you. IOW I don’t understand why this is such a big deal to you as it seems unlikely you’ll even play the base game.

[Xurkitree]

This is very much a non issue and i wish i could hide the thread from me. Binaries are cool! What's your problem if they're almost right? As long as they don't break the game (which they dont), and can provide an proper challenge, they're great! I always wanted a lava world in KSP 1, even if that's because I had to struggle getting my lava right on my lava worlds, and now we're getting, not 1 but 2! 

real talk tho, where can i sue star theory for copying my idea of a lava binary smh

Edited August 28, 2019 by Xurkitree

[Bill Phil]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:02 PM, KerikBalm said:

Well warp drive could be possible if we could get out hands on negative mass. We have some reason to believe that it might be possible... so they're dealing with 2 forms of unobtainium, and gambling that 1 form of potential unobtanium isn't actually unobtanium.

Assuming our current understanding of GR is accurate in that extreme case.

If Quantum Gravity is ever understood such potential “FTL” drives may be completely impossible, not to mention causality violations.

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

You’re already playing with a 3x scaled mod system and Principia. It seems to me that unmodded KSP 1 is already unpalatable to you. IOW I don’t understand why this is such a big deal to you as it seems unlikely you’ll even play the base game.

nah, base KSP is still fun, but I wanted more after a while. I've also reverted from principia, just because the interface isn't so great (cant click on orbit and add a maneuver node).

I also use completely stock parts for my craft. The binary planet thing + scale is the least important thing on the list. IMO I'd rather have a solid part set, and mod the system(s), than a magic part set and a scaled up system.

I'm concerned about the direction they are going with the parts.

Maybe when we have more information, I'll find that my concerns were making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

[whitespacekilla]

I like when people are upfront about wanting n-body physics because it helps me spot people who I won't agree with on game design at all. I'd confidently bet KSP2 won't have n-body physics. It's the kind of thing perfect for Universe Sandbox, which isn't really much of a game.

I do not have ANY desire to go to my vessels in flight and keep their station. Nor do I have any desire to calculate stable orbits (within the context of accomplishing other orbit sensitive contracts, especially). Nor do I have any desire to refuel craft that slowly use resources for their own station keeping. It's not fun, I don't care, single body SOI is a fine enough abstraction for a game like this.

[chaos_forge]

52 minutes ago, whitespacekilla said:

I do not have ANY desire to go to my vessels in flight and keep their station. Nor do I have any desire to calculate stable orbits (within the context of accomplishing other orbit sensitive contracts, especially). Nor do I have any desire to refuel craft that slowly use resources for their own station keeping. It's not fun, I don't care, single body SOI is a fine enough abstraction for a game like this.

None of those necessarily have to result from n-body. For example, Children of a Dead Earth, another extremely realistic space sim (in many ways even more realistic than KSP), has automated station-keeping that doesn't consume any vessel delta-v. You just check the "station-keeping on" mode, and boom your ship is on a fixed conic section orbit. Such a system would be extremely easy to add to KSP2, and I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't included in KSP2.

59 minutes ago, whitespacekilla said:

I'd confidently bet KSP2 won't have n-body physics.

The SOI model can't handle binary systems, so I don't know how else you think the devs are gonna make Rusk and Rask work.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, chaos_forge said:

The SOI model can't handle binary systems, so I don't know how else you think the devs are gonna make Rusk and Rask work.

Maybe they aren't. They may cut them out from the final game once they realize their "solution" creates problems at barycenter, and that patched conics model really doesn't offer any actual solution to that. Let's face it: the devs aren't reading this forum, didn't even think about early access and are not physicists themselves. They are setting themselves up for many pitfalls which the community could have helped them anticipate. You're all assuming KSP2 devs know what they're doing. I'm not entirely convinced this is the case. 

I do hope magic metallic hydrogen is cut, at least, or replaced with something more plausible like an NSWR. I told Nertea all the way back it was not a good idea when he put this tech in FFT, which I suspect they got that idea from. Indeed, very little of what I saw so far was truly original. Most of the new stuff is USI writ large (albeit with a neat concept for in-situ assembly), while advanced propulsion is basically FFT with a dash of KSPI. While not entirely a bad thing, I'm afraid that they will do nothing to actually improve on those mods outside the purely technical aspect. A lot of KSP needs outright rethinking, and I have seen zero evidence of that happening.

Also, solar panels still look nothing like in reality. If things like that aren't fixed, they better be prepared to change a lot of things post-release...

[whitespacekilla]

24 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

None of those necessarily have to result from n-body. For example, Children of a Dead Earth, another extremely realistic space sim (in many ways even more realistic than KSP), has automated station-keeping that doesn't consume any vessel delta-v. You just check the "station-keeping on" mode, and boom your ship is on a fixed conic section orbit. Such a system would be extremely easy to add to KSP2, and I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't included in KSP2.

The SOI model can't handle binary systems, so I don't know how else you think the devs are gonna make Rusk and Rask work.

I think the authors of binary system mods and players who have used them would beg to differ.

The SOI model certainly can handle binary systems (insofar as it handles anything else, as an abstraction). I'm confident Rusk and Rask will work the same way (with an invisible point mass body representing the barycenter).

Edit: there's merit to what you're saying about just ignoring the maintenance of orbits, this is effectively already in KSP1 thanks to some rails inaccuracies that can cause orbital decay even in the patched conics simulation version. Maybe you could design a game such that when you were in a non-hyperbolic orbit, unloaded, fixed conic section orbits are used but active vessels and vessels on hyperbolic orbits (or coming from hyperbolic orbit since last active) obey n-body physics. That said, I wouldn't bet on the devs adding any of this, mostly because system design is so much harder when you have n-body physics. If I was tasked to design systems that would be stable in an n-body simulation, I would probably just steal the parameters of real world systems, I don't know that this approach is of interest to/compatible with the vision of the teams behind these games.

Edited August 28, 2019 by whitespacekilla

[Nuke]

i dont really care if we get super theoretical future engines, so long as it meets the following conditions. 

there needs to be strong science to back it up, even if the technology does not exist.

the consequences of that engine need to be realized (for example the need for a lot of radiators).

the engine should be a proper reaction engine, no reactionless or warp drives. 

[Geschosskopf]

18 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

OOPs

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Geschosskopf

[TBenz]

2 hours ago, chaos_forge said:

The SOI model can't handle binary systems, so I don't know how else you think the devs are gonna make Rusk and Rask work.

By hacking it together in a way the community won't really be happy with, is my bet.

I'd love to see n-body mechanics. But I don't believe Star Theory is going to risk straying too far away from KSP 1's core physics. I would not assume that the inclusion of a binary system means anything beyond Star Theory believing they can adapt the SOI system for binaries. Which ultimately would mean a "binary" system that doesn't really act much anything like a real binary system would, gravity wise. If we get something better than that, I'll be ecstatic, but if we don't then I won't have any expectations crushed.

Maybe I've bee following Star Citizen for too long, but I tend towards the lowest possible expectations. 

[Geschosskopf]

19 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

No, just no. #1) The research into metallic hydrogen has value whether or not it is meta stable.

Whether or not something "has value" is entirely subjective.  And the person whose subjective values alone matters is the one whose neck is on the line should things go badly as a result of the decision.  So yes, just yes, for my argument  

By your statement above, you would fund Alchemist #1, the pure research option.  Whatever he turns up, you'd consider it useful data.

But that's not the world in which policy-makers live, even if they agree with you in their private thoughts.  Their #1 goal, just as Machiavelli stated, is to stay in power,.  Neither peasant revolts, nor pretenders to the throne, nor military coups, nor so-called democratic elections, shall unseat them, because they shall always retain the favor of those who vote for them (and they'll jigger the election rules as needed to ensure that remains the case).  

The bottom line, to the king, is that any alchemist wanting to study metallic hydrogen for purely research purposes has to compete with more important matters (to the king, in the key voting demographics) such as nuns wanting to build orphanages, peasants too stupid to move away from uninsurably flood-prone areas but who work in the nationally vital petrochemical industry, and all points in between and even further off this scale, depending on how much your sympathies lean left or right.

Basically, when your request for funds comes up for decision, those who make that decision are only interested in 1 thing:  the political ramifications to themselves.  They will vote you up or down according to their perceived political benefit or fallout, regardless of the absolute merits of your case.  That's all there is to it.

 

Quote

And in my private game, I want an engine with a reasonable acceleration, and I want to feel like if I use the engines and craft available, the craft will be realistic in overall qualities (even if the colonies aren't, and stuff like engine starting and part wear isn't modeled). If there aren't just tiny cracks in reality, but gaping chasms, then that puts everything into doubt.

That's why Sarbian god made Module Manager.  And why anybody, in the privacy of his own game, can play by whatever rules suits his taste.  Don't go forcing your views on anybody else.  Others might not, and probably (given the size of the community) don't agree with your subjective vision of what KSP1 or KSP2 is or should be.

 

Quote

I'd rather leave the magic tech as a mod...

What part of having substantial, self-sufficient colonies all over do you NOT consider as magic?  If you accept the existence of KSP2 interplanetary colonies (not even considering interstellar), then you accept magic,.  There is no middle ground for this in the human universe.

For the purposes of my argument here, let us assume that a human colony on another world is totally self-sufficient in terms of basic life support via whatever ISRU you want to bring to the table.  Thus, even the minimal, just barely-possible-with-current-tech, colony won't die if you don't micromanage it.  The colonists will always have enough to eat, drink and breathe, even if most of that is recycled mulch plus whatever small gardens they can grow in artificially lighted and irrigated lava tubes.

That's nowhere near all they need, however.  There's a whole long shopping list of vital domestic consumables that the colony will be utterly incapable of producing for itself until it has an industrial base rivaling that of its homeworld.  Not to mention the consumables of that industrial base, plus the workforce required to staff that industrial base will increase the need for domestic consumables.  So until the colony is pretty much on an equal footing with the homeworld, it'll always be dependent on the homeworld for things like (off the top of my head)

• toilet paper and tampons
• toothpaste, toothbrushes, and dental floss
• razor blades (even for electric razors) or Nair to avoid shaving (although you might be able to find obsidian deposits, teach the colonists to knap microblades, and do things old-school for this)
• deodorant and mouthwash
• pharmaceuticals of all kinds from cough drops to aspirin to opiates to epinephrine, not to mention topical antibiotics
• new IVA clothing as clothes wear out even without having to deal with the ultra-abrasive regolith of vacuum worlds, not to mention going out of style
• spare parts for every piece of equipment, public or private, in the colony
• the latest versions of phones, tablets, and PCs to maintain contact with family back home or even to report progress (Mission Control can't even update if that would make it incompatible with the colony's systems)
• more stuff I don't have time to think of.

The point is, there's no such thing as a self-sufficient colony unless either a) it's on the same order of magnitude as the homeworld, or b) the colonists are willing to revert to the Stone Age and build a civilization from there.  But the latter course only works where the planet is in all respects identical to Earth.  It won't happen for a few folks living in specially encapsulated segments of otherwise inhospitable lava tubes.  Even obsidian microblade razors won't remove them from utter dependency on their homeworld for everything else.

Therefore, accepting the colony aspects of KSP2 requires accepting magic and all that implies.  Speculative, even pseudo-science stuff, is the very least of what you have to accept if you accept colonies.  Thus, all arguments over the feasibility, let alone the specific properties,  of this or that imagined future propulsion system, are moot.  At least one of those unbelievable things has to happen at an acceptable price or the colonies wouldn't be there in the 1st place  

Edited August 29, 2019 by Geschosskopf

[GoldForest]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:33 AM, KerikBalm said:

 

1) Metallic hydrogen rockets? This would only work if metalic hydrogen was meta-stable, and would remain metallic after being compressed even if pressure was let off (similar to a diamond). - This is unknown and is speculative. Its not like an Orian drive that we know would work. Its not even like an ICF drive that we know would work (at what scale it would need to be built to work is another question).

They are getting very close to being able to examine the properties of metallic hydrogen, and its entirely possible that in a year or two, this type of engine will be shown to be firmly in the magic-tech category.

 

Quote

Note on the trailer: Everything in that trailer is an in game asset. The engine shown at the beginning around the mun is metallic hydrogen and a bridge tech between the KSP1 and KSP2 technologies

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

The point is, there's no such thing as a self-sufficient colony unless either a) it's on the same order of magnitude as the homeworld, or b) the colonists are willing to revert to the Stone Age and build a civilization from there.  But the latter course only works where the planet is in all respects identical to Earth.  It won't happen for a few folks living in specially encapsulated segments of otherwise inhospitable lava tubes.  Even obsidian microblade razors won't remove them from utter dependency on their homeworld for everything else.

While I agree with you in the big picture (i.e., self-sufficient space colonies are ... if not categorically impossible, at least incredibly implausible), I'm not sure about the specifics here. There's one set of technologies that's quietly making its way into the world that will make the industrial base hurdle much, much lower: the stuff that's lumped under "3D printing." We're already at the point where we can 3D print spare parts for complex machinery, and the technologies are continuously improving in all aspects: size, precision, range and quality of materials, and so on and so forth. 

In other words, in another decade or so I think it will be possible to build a pretty compact general-purpose fab lab that can manufacture most of that stuff, including its own spare parts. On top of that you'd need a recycling and refining plant that produces the raw materials it needs. In other words, you wouldn't need a full-scale (post)industrial society and manufacturing base for it.

Another thing that is going to happen in the next few decades is serious genetic engineering. We already have our first engineered babies and the thing that's holding us back is ethics rather than technology (and FWIW I share those ethical concerns). I don't think homo sapiens sapiens as we currently know it is biologically or psychologically capable of surviving in a permanent off-world colony, but if we really really wanted to, we could probably eventually change that.

So I think that in theory a city-scale self-sustaining Martian colony of genetically engineered post-humans could be possible. In practice I think it's vanishingly unlikely. IOW I don't think it's quite "magic," sitting just barely on this side of that line.

[KerikBalm]

TBH, I have concerns over the colonies too, but we don't know how they are going to work. My point is that any one of these I can overlook, but the confluence of multiple veins of magic concerns me.

They mentioned manufacturing in space too, so a VAB function doesn't mean self sufficient necessarily (I hope not, for the orbital construction). If you need to send parts and resources to space to build rockets there, I'm fine with that. Assembly of pre-built components in orbit is more realistic than doing all the steps from ores to ships...

I can just skip Metallic hydrogen engines... fine. My guess is they are the nuke-less way to get off super-kerbins and places like Eve. -As long as we have alternatives, I'm fine. These sort of engines aren't needed for the home-system (which shouldn't change much). Give me LANTR nuke engines, Ramrockets/Air turborockets/air-augmented rockets, and metallic hydrogen won't be needed IMO.

For colonies, I guess you can stop at the point where it just houses kerbals and makes fuel. I agree that a completely self sufficient colony that makes ships and new colony components from raw materials mined on site is too much. However, a mining colony seems more realistic than the ISRU we have now, where its easy to make self-fueling craft with just Drills, 1x 2.5m (or even 1.25m) part, solar panels, and radiators. Requiring a colony to do that instead is more realistic... maybe we should say "base" rather than colony.

Self sufficient colonies around the kerbin system seems a bit over the top, but it seems that its a good gameplay decision for exploring the other star systems (so that you can set up a colony and build ships there). If I make a version of Rald for KSP 2, I'll give it a self sufficient colony too (nowhere else), because it already has O2, standing surface water, and life with a common origin to that found on Kerbin (local panspermia from ejecta within a solar system)... or maybe I'll put Rald in another star system.

As to what was linked by @GoldForest from pax west, what I consider relevant (numbering is mine, many parts are omitted):

Quote

(1) The engine shown at the beginning around the mun is metallic hydrogen and a bridge tech between the KSP1 and KSP2 technologies

(2) Binary. Planets. At least possible with modding, we didn't see any official systems other than kerbin, but the potential was demoed

(3) Colonies are built, not grown, and will need resources supplied in order to build Colony buildings and any rockets/vehicles you build at them. Colony population does not grow over time. Colonists are brought in manually. Colonists also - ahem - multiply when you accomplish something and give them a reason to celebrate. Bottom line is you can't fast forward to grow population. Colonies are meant to be springboards for deeper exploration. Orbital Colonies are great places to build interstellar rockets and move past the Kerbol system.

1) booo

2) I hope the mass ratio isn't 1:1, the close they are to true binaries, the more funky the patched conic approximation is. My personal preference (and what I did for my mod) is to draw the line at a 4:1 mass ratio.

3) Its not clear if a colony can supply all of its own resources, or if you'll need to have colonies in multiple locations (and ship resources between them) to gather all the required resources (may depend on the body). If you require a whole network of colonies before self sufficiency, I'm kind of ok with that. It doesn't sound like you can infinitely expand colony population through self sufficient means - but I guess kerbal population goes up when you accomplish something like a "worlds-first" record  - otherwise you need to send kerbals from Kerbin?

[GoldForest]

31 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

TBH, I have concerns over the colonies too, but we don't know how they are going to work. My point is that any one of these I can overlook, but the confluence of multiple veins of magic concerns me.

They mentioned manufacturing in space too, so a VAB function doesn't mean self sufficient necessarily (I hope not, for the orbital construction). If you need to send parts and resources to space to build rockets there, I'm fine with that. Assembly of pre-built components in orbit is more realistic than doing all the steps from ores to ships...

I can just skip Metallic hydrogen engines... fine. My guess is they are the nuke-less way to get off super-kerbins and places like Eve. -As long as we have alternatives, I'm fine. These sort of engines aren't needed for the home-system (which shouldn't change much). Give me LANTR nuke engines, Ramrockets/Air turborockets/air-augmented rockets, and metallic hydrogen won't be needed IMO.

For colonies, I guess you can stop at the point where it just houses kerbals and makes fuel. I agree that a completely self sufficient colony that makes ships and new colony components from raw materials mined on site is too much. However, a mining colony seems more realistic than the ISRU we have now, where its easy to make self-fueling craft with just Drills, 1x 2.5m (or even 1.25m) part, solar panels, and radiators. Requiring a colony to do that instead is more realistic... maybe we should say "base" rather than colony.

Self sufficient colonies around the kerbin system seems a bit over the top, but it seems that its a good gameplay decision for exploring the other star systems (so that you can set up a colony and build ships there). If I make a version of Rald for KSP 2, I'll give it a self sufficient colony too (nowhere else), because it already has O2, standing surface water, and life with a common origin to that found on Kerbin (local panspermia from ejecta within a solar system)... or maybe I'll put Rald in another star system.

As to what was linked by @GoldForest from pax west, what I consider relevant (numbering is mine, many parts are omitted):

1) booo

2) I hope the mass ratio isn't 1:1, the close they are to true binaries, the more funky the patched conic approximation is. My personal preference (and what I did for my mod) is to draw the line at a 4:1 mass ratio.

3) Its not clear if a colony can supply all of its own resources, or if you'll need to have colonies in multiple locations (and ship resources between them) to gather all the required resources (may depend on the body). If you require a whole network of colonies before self sufficiency, I'm kind of ok with that. It doesn't sound like you can infinitely expand colony population through self sufficient means - but I guess kerbal population goes up when you accomplish something like a "worlds-first" record  - otherwise you need to send kerbals from Kerbin?

Colonies do become self-sufficient at some point. You'll need to setup mining operations probably and have lots of factories in order to do so, but you can have one colony standing alone. 

With that being said, they did mention that resource generation has been overhauled IIRC, so I would imagine that one colony, while doable, would be difficult to maintain. Mining trucks would have to probably go thousands of KMs to reach the resources, spend all day mining, then haul the load back. It would be better to setup several colonies and establish trade routes between them. 

We get a shot of a new truck in KSP 2's trailer, and it was hauling a container. Maybe it was on its way to another colony or a mining outpost? 

Edited August 29, 2019 by GoldForest

[KerikBalm]

Scott manley shares my same concerns about the binary planets, and some of the other planets/ bodies...

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/473822143?t=38m14s

 

At 38:15: Its putting Scott Manley off too. He thinks they have no solution to the binary planet problem. Then they go into Ice on Minmus, and a volcanic Pol... neither of which make sense...

It also appears that the devs had no idea that there are gimballed SRBs...

Edited August 29, 2019 by KerikBalm

[Xd the great]

28 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

At 38:15: Its putting Scott Manley off too. He thinks they have no solution to the binary planet problem. Then they go into Ice on Minmus, and a volcanic Pol... neither of which make sense...

It also appears that the devs had no idea that there are gimballed SRBs...

How the hell is SRB not gimballed?

Add that to my wishlist.

And for those complaining that Metallic hydrogen is fiction, would it be ok to make the metallic hydrogen SRBs extremely heavy (with heavy casing), and having low crash tolerence?

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, Xd the great said:

How the hell is SRB not gimballed?

Add that to my wishlist.

A simple MM file will fix that. And Squad has said there will be no need for Module Manager anymore, but I feel like there will be if the game doesn't allow mods to overwrite natively. 

[klgraham1013]

23 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I fear that the confluence of these factors will make the base game unpalatable to me, and it will only have value as a "platform"/ only mods will be able to save it for me.

To be honest, that's kind of how I feel about KSP1.  I have hopes for KSP2, but I'm trying to keep my expectations in check.

[Guest]

Oh man reading this thread, makes you realise just how much KSP isn't a game, it's a way of life. Despite our occasional differences about fundamentally pretty small details, it is an honour to share this odyssey with you, my fellow kerbonauts. 

[Xd the great]

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Oh man reading this thread, makes you realise just how much KSP isn't a game, it's a way of life. Despite our occasional differences about fundamentally pretty small details, it is an honour to share this odyssey with you, my fellow kerbonauts. 

*Kerbal theme music blaring in the background

[nejc]

When it comes to propulsion, my vote goes against speculative science, but still in favor of speculative engineering.

Therefore, I am in favor of confinement fusion and antimatter rockets. However, not in favor of low pressure metallic hydrogen and Alcubierre drive.