Discussion of metallic hydrogen propulsion split from another thread.

[Lewie]

I’d like to say one thing-Mh is going to be in the game, period. Why bother arguing about the feasibility of it?  It’s just a game, after all. Why get so worked up about mh, when so many players strap kerbals to lawn chairs for 50+ year missions. Mh is going to be in the game...and that’s alright.  Cus, y’know...whatca going to do about it? 

[KerikBalm]

[snip]

I did not say that they proved mh was not metastable in the 80s. I said that they disproved the only theory (well, it never really rose to the level of theory) that predicted that it would be.

The two are not the same thing, and I explicitly pointed it out. So I must conclude that the most likely explanation is that you are being deliberately misleading, and are also projecting your actions onto others.

 

From the 80's on there was no theory that predicted that it would be metastable. The proof it wasn't metastable had to wait for 2017 and 2019. That doesn't change the fact that for the last 40 years or so, there has been no prediction of substantial metastability.

[snip]

Edited October 11, 2020 by Vanamonde

[Vanamonde]

Please back off of the tempers. Some comments have been removed. 

[kerbiloid]

That's how the Horus Heresy of Metastable Hydrogen Metallists appeared in KSP.

They mark places of interest with their sign:

Spoiler

This means: "Hydrogen Metal Rocks"

 

Later some adepts had founded a fraction of Heavy Metal.
They believed in Metastable Metallic Helium, which is heavier than hydrogen.

The logo stayed same, but was spelled as "Helium Metal Rocks" or "Heavy Metal Rocks".

Edited October 11, 2020 by kerbiloid

[mcwaffles2003]

18 hours ago, Master39 said:

How could I even reply to the idea that a feature has to be either completely accurate or completely bonkers and that there is some combination of the two that would make something unrealistic to much believable to be added in the game?

"It's not realistic but it's not unrealistic enough" is the ultimate subjective an completely arbitrary reason.

I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinion, just that is such a subjective thing that I don't even think that it needs to be addressed if not by addressing the underlying idea that the game has some sort of responsibility about the tech they put in, a thing that I already addressed here.

You're being intentionally hyperbolic... Perhaps explaining the bounds or extents and reasons of what you consider in and out of bounds. I just happen to find mmH a bad alternative to a more realistic solution for which both fulfill the same niche completely. If you have a choice between a less realistic and more realistic engine and the less realistic engine doesn't add anything else to gameplay over the more realistic engine... then why include it?

Also, last I check opinions are subjective and we're allowed to have/voice them. Just because they aren't objective truths does not mean they are arbitrary.

 

18 hours ago, Master39 said:

That goes back to wasting time in removing and remaking a portion of the game a thing that I personally consider a net loss for everyone for a nitpick that only a few user would even notice or have a problem with.

You've already acknowledged that some suspension of disbelief is needed for the game, adding a "metallic hydrogen is metastable in this universe" beside "the planets are impossibly dense" it's not a big leap at all, personally I would say it's not even noticeable.  

I still think you are overestimating the time cost the adjustment would require. And as I just mentioned, having the planets be 1/10th scale serves a purpose but adding mmH does not.

18 hours ago, Master39 said:

One thing is saying that "the Martian" require some suspension of disbelief with its hurricane wind on Mars a completely different one is saying that having a dinosaur attack the Ares 1 crew would have been an equally unrealistic scenario.

Comparing metallic hydrogen to theories that were disproved in the 18th century is dishonest and misleading, it's just a lazy attempt to make the argument seems a bigger deal than it really is.

Comparing disproven hypotheses about fantastical abilities of substances with other disproven hypotheses about fantastical abilities of substances is fair and I don't see why time makes something disproven more recently more acceptable. You come to me about false comparisons while comparing dinosaur attacks on mars to paperweight hurricane winds. Once again... hyperbole. Its getting difficult taking you seriously.

I get that the devs might not be all scientists with their noses in the books about every bit of this game, to expect that would be as ridiculous as comparing winds knocking over spaceships to them being attacked on a life barren planet by dinosaurs >.>

But I would prefer that if there is an option between 2 techs and both serve the exact same roll that the more believable tech be the one chosen. Just my preference.

19 hours ago, Master39 said:

The 2016 alleged observation was put at doubt because of some undeclared or unclear modifications to the equipment (something about a coating to prevent hydrogen weakening the diamond? Not sure and I don't want to pretend I know more) and the sample was lost when the cell broke before they could repeat the observation to confirm the data, no other observation was claimed until one in 2018 and one in 2019.

Of the 2 papers only one is from 2017, the other is from last February and it claims in its abstract that:

Quote

 the various claims of its observation remain unconfirmed

 

Dragon in a reply before stated that this studies are "hot from the anvil", to me it seems that we're not even sure we have a forge.

Who mentioned a 2016 paper and where is the citation? If you're responding to me requesting another person for literature on a claim they made disputing my own claim the least you could do is:

1. address the thing I actually mentioned, not some unmentioned paper
2. provide a citation to your argument so I can read it myself

[Guest]

Honestly I'm just tired of all of this, I surrender, you won.

 

I just hope this doesn't generate so much noise that the devs really consider such a dumb change so late in development, I'll just do my part by stop producing noise myself.

 

Sorry for the interruption, you can continue from where you were before my intervention.

_{If someone has something to say about my original point feel free to send me a PM.}

[SOXBLOX]

I agree that it is extremely likely that mmH does not exist. But it is also highly unlikely that torchdrives can exist. One of these is being included; why is it not being attacked?

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

I agree that it is extremely likely that mmH does not exist. But it is also highly unlikely that torchdrives can exist. One of these is being included; why is it not being attacked?

A NSWR would fulfill the requirements of a torchship in a realistic manner. From project rho:

Quote

NSWR
20% UTB
Fuel	Uranium Tetrabromide 20% enriched
Remass	Water 2% UTB solution
Exhaust Velocity	66,000 m/s
Specific Impulse	6,728 s
Thrust	12,900,000 N
Thrust Power	425.7 GW
Mass Flow	195 kg/s
Total Engine Mass	33,000 kg
T/W	40
Reactor	Gas Core Open-Cycle
Remass Accel	Thermal Accel: Reaction Heat
Thrust Director	Pusher Plate
Specific Power	77.5 kg/GW
90% UTB (missing items same as above)
Fuel	Uranium Tetrabromide 90% enriched
Exhaust Velocity	4,725,000 m/s (1.575% c)
Specific Impulse	482,140 s
Thrust Power	30,600 GW (30.6 TW)
Mass Flow	3 kg/s
Specific Power	1.1 kg/GW

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[DStaal]

15 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

I agree that it is extremely likely that mmH does not exist. But it is also highly unlikely that torchdrives can exist. One of these is being included; why is it not being attacked?

What do you mean by torchdrives?  There's a good in-depth discussion on them here: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php

But generally torchdrives are a class of drives, not a specific drive.  Some of the proposed realistic drives can fall into that class - depending on exactly how you define that class.  (Arguably, the mostly-tested Orion nuclear pulse design would be a torchdrive...)  So, which of those drives are you referring to?

[Guest]

Nate Simpson addresses Metallic Hydrogen Science and the criticism about this in the podcast here:

http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/

So there is your answer about KSP 2 devs about introducing Metallic Hydrogen

[Incarnation of Chaos]

56 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Nate Simpson addresses Metallic Hydrogen Science and the criticism about this in the podcast here:

http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/

So there is your answer about KSP 2 devs about introducing Metallic Hydrogen

Was this made before or after the community raked him over the coals for it? I've seen the stuff before, and to put it politely it doesn't address any of the points me or others have brought.

Also it's a separate podcast....which means it can be effectively dismissed as "not official" or "the opinions of the respective employee" if anything in there is inconvenient.

Which is why I wanted a separate official statement.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Which is why I wanted a separate official statement.

I think that's the closest we are getting to a statement.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Just now, The Doodling Astronaut said:

I think that's the closest we are getting to a statement.

Well that's a shame then, looks like I'll be resorting to patching the things out whenever I get around to playing KSP2.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Well that's a shame then, looks like I'll be resorting to patching the things out whenever I get around to playing KSP2.

Well you play how you play and I play how I play

[Dr. Kerbal]

On 10/2/2019 at 1:41 PM, Dragon01 said:

Metallic hydrogen again... this is how scientific misconceptions are born. No, it doesn't work as a propellant, we already know that. 

I don’t know. Anything about this stuff. I only know it’s going to be in KSP2 and I’m problem going to make sucjpha big rocket that it will....

Boom!

[Lewie]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

I don’t know. Anything about this stuff. I only know it’s going to be in KSP2 and I’m problem going to make sucjpha big rocket that it will....

Boom!

We need more of this!

See, @Dr. Kerbal has the right idea-new engines=moar power=bigger boom. 

After all...In thrust we trust!

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Nate Simpson addresses Metallic Hydrogen Science and the criticism about this in the podcast here:

http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/

So there is your answer about KSP 2 devs about introducing Metallic Hydrogen

Time stamp?

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Time stamp?

Found it 1:03:00 ish

Paraphrasing:

Quote

If we've gotten someone to talk about the feasibility of the metastability of metallic hydrogen then we have done our job.

Fair enough, not my preference but I will still enjoy the engines to the fullest

EDIT: Still hoping for a large array of nuclear driven propulsion and KSPIE-esque reactor/engine/thermal nozzle combination varieties

Edited October 16, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[KerikBalm]

19 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Nate Simpson addresses Metallic Hydrogen Science and the criticism about this in the podcast here:

http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/

So there is your answer about KSP 2 devs about introducing Metallic Hydrogen

13 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Time stamp?

1:03:18

So the answer is that he is misinformed, trying to hide being misinformed in the past, or disregarding the truth to justify gameplay.

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.

Quote

One of the more, it turns out,  controversial choiceswe made, was to include metastable metallic hydrogen as a rocket fuel. Because, you know, looking at recent research, especially at the time when we started, um there was evidence that it had been synthesized using diamond anvils, that it was... that its metastability had been proven and that yes there were enourmous as yet unsolved questions around making this stuff at scale and keeping it from exploding on you, heh, that it was, again, rooted in science enough, uh and of course its performance characteristics were right in that sweet spot between traditional rocket propellents and like nuclear pulse propulsion, which is not a thing you can use near your base. So um, so it was perfect from a gameplay perspective. 

I can only guess that he was referring to the 2017 paper.  That paper used diamond anvils (as the 2019 paper did), but nowhere did they claim to demonstrate metastability. They may have synthesized metallic hydrogen, but they never made any claim to have made metastable metallic hydrogen, much less provide evidence or proof of metastability.

There are only 2 options, Nate is misinformed, or intentionally making false statements because mmH would be so good for his gameplay vision.

If its the 2nd option, then that is sad, because closed cycle NTRs could fill that role. While "nuclear pulse propulsion"/"Orion drives" understandable shouldn't be usable near a colony, a LV-N or any other closed cycle nuclear rocket should be usable near a colony. It was not needed for the gameplay purposes that he stated.

I guess he didn't want players to have to deal with radiation for mid-level engines? Some radiation shielding would be needed, but its not like a nuclear bomb going off, and shouldn't be significantly worse to deal with than LV-Ns.

@Nate Simpson You said you were expecting criticism, and you are ready to have the conservation. Well, here is that discussion, come have it, you said that you were ready and happy to have it in the podcast.

We've been waiting a long time for you to weigh in on the conversation. You just said that you're ready to have the conversation. Let's have it.

Edited October 16, 2020 by KerikBalm

[Vanamonde]

When we start accusing each other of intentionally lying we are departing the realm of productive discussion. Don't get carried away, and keep things polite. 

[Gargamel]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

mmH would be so good for his gameplay vision.

Is there anything wrong with that?   If we apply the same logic to any other creator of fictional entertainment then Clarke, Asimov, Verne, and all the other creators of Hard sci-fi would never have produced a thing.  We're talking about a game.   A game that revolves around little green men and women, who never need to eat, who have built an advanced space program with no obvious society to support it, on a planet apparently made of osmium.  I welcome a little play on the truth when it comes to futuristic, not yet fully developed tech being implemented in such a game. 

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Is there anything wrong with that?   

Not really, but he didn't say that.

He made an objectively false statement instead.

@Nate Simpson would you care to weigh in?

[Deddly]

14 hours ago, Gargamel said:

I welcome a little play on the truth when it comes to futuristic, not yet fully developed tech being implemented in such a game. 

I think the objection some have is that metastable metallic hydrogen appears to be in the realms of scifi on the level of Star Trek warp drive technology, which Nate specifically told the crew right from the start should be out of the question. 

I'm not totally convinced either way, but that's the impression I get from reading a significant amount of this thread. 

[coyotesfrontier]

I agree with what everyone else is saying about metallic hydrogen. Such a blatantly unrealistic fuel shouldn't be in a game that claims to possess "hard science". @Nate Simpson. I would recommend advanced Nuclear-Thermal designs as a replacement, as they seem to fit the performance envelope that the MH engines seem to be targeting (1000-4000isp, high thrust).

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, coyotesfrontier said:

I agree with what everyone else is saying about metallic hydrogen. Such a blatantly unrealistic fuel shouldn't be in a game that claims to possess "hard science". @Nate Simpson. I would recommend advanced Nuclear-Thermal designs as a replacement, as they seem to fit the performance envelope that the MH engines seem to be targeting (1000-4000isp, high thrust).

I believe the problem, gameplay wise, is the lack of a nonradioactive exhaust/high thrust/ medium or high Isp/ near habitats solution and the devs want a rocket that fills that position. Nuclear rockets with high thrust normally leave behind radioactivity and a closed cycle gas core (nuclear lightbulb) only musters up a TWR of 1.3 which, while feasible, isn't practical for launches from a comparable gravity well to kerbin.

Personally, I'd be cool with just using chemical rockets in the vicinity of a base but the devs think we shouldn't have to bother. It seems like they care a lot about radioactivity so I at least have my hopes up that NERVA, Daedalus, and Orion probably aren't the only nuclear engines and we get some of the more nuanced ones in between.

Edited October 17, 2020 by mcwaffles2003