Discussion of metallic hydrogen propulsion split from another thread.

[mcwaffles2003]

14 hours ago, Master39 said:

Honestly this is exactly the kind of *reasons* I was thinking about while writing my reply, the subtle balance of being unrealistic enough to be unbelievable is absolutely something completely arbitrary.

Why is it arbitrary? Sure, the objective defacto point of balance there is undefined but establishing a boundary between an objective reality we can relate to and artistic license matters. Yes, it is a game, but it is one we use as a window to translate reality as we understand it and simplifies it's concepts. We can argue where that boundary sits as a subjective opinion but surely it isn't arbitrary in that it doesn't matter.

14 hours ago, Master39 said:

Why should the Devs throw away months of development time to meet higher standards?

I'm more worried about the possible damage to the gameplay done by a hurried removal than the inexistent risk of "misinformation" about what at the end of the day is just another fictional tech in a (hard) sci-fi game

Why would replacing an asset model and minor tweaking to a cfg file take months?

14 hours ago, Master39 said:

No, your curiosity would just bring you to one of the countless what-ifs that people often loves to discuss about in the spaceflight community, just one that happened to be considered more slightly more seriously for slightly more time than average.

Ok, well I prefer alchemy not be in games I play that simulate chemistry, even if the HF acid would etch its way through the glass beaker that it's being simulated in for convenience and transparency,  I don't think its addition (alchemy) would be beneficial to me. Sure at one point it was regarded highly, but now looking into it as a matter is mostly pointless. Personally at least.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why is it arbitrary? Sure, the objective defacto point of balance there is undefined but establishing a boundary between an objective reality we can relate to and artistic license matters. Yes, it is a game, but it is one we use as a window to translate reality as we understand it and simplifies it's concepts. We can argue where that boundary sits as a subjective opinion but surely it isn't arbitrary in that it doesn't matter.

I don't what to put at doubt your good faith so I'll just consider it a very bizzarre and personal take on the argument (a very convenient one).

 

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why would replacing an asset model and minor tweaking to a cfg file take months?

Radiation and fuel refining/crafting seems to be gameplay elements and unless you're suggesting a mere replacing "metallic hydrogen" with "liquid explodium that, somehow, behave just like metallic hydrogen would have if it were metastable" (thing that wouldn't make the game any more or less realistic)  you're talking about messing with a good portion of the progression balance, a good portion of the crafting tree and a good part of the engine assets wasting all the time that it took to make them in the first place and then all the time that it will take to remove and replace them and redesign/rebalance all the linked gameplay features.

 

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Ok, well I prefer alchemy not be in games I play that simulate chemistry

I would prefer people being honest and not pretending that something that has been put at doubt in the last few months and still regarded as "the holy grail of rocket propulsion" everywhere is close to things that have been considered pseudo science for decades if not centuries.

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

6 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Radiation and fuel refining/crafting seems to be gameplay elements and unless you're suggesting a mere replacing "metallic hydrogen" with "liquid explodium that, somehow, behave just like metallic hydrogen would have if it were metastable" (thing that wouldn't make the game any more or less realistic)  you're talking about messing with a good portion of the progression balance, a good portion of the crafting tree and a good part of the engine assets wasting all the time that it took to make them in the first place and then all the time that it will take to remove and replace them and redesign/rebalance all the linked gameplay features.

 

You don't "Replace" it at all; you rework the models to resemble NSWR's using Liquid Hydrogen, Methane or Ammonia. And then you drop them into the same places in the progression and crafting that their Purple Space Magic parents would've occupied.

At the most you end up trashing a few models; which wouldn't take "Months" to remake in any world where people are doing this 8 hours a day as part of an entire team. The rest (Fuel, Tankage, Radiation cones, Thermal properties) can be automated via configs if KSP2 is even slightly like KSP with Module Manager included stock.

13 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I would prefer people being honest and not pretending that something that has been put at doubt in the last few months and still regarded as "the holy grail of rocket propulsion" everywhere is close to things that have been considered pseudo science for decades if not centuries.

It's been in doubt ever since 2016, and especially after the lowest pressures thought to create Normal Metallic Hydrogen turned out to be inconclusive. Leading to the needed Pressures for Metallic Hydrogen being higher, and breaking the assumptions that the model that predicted Metastable Metallic Hydrogen worked with. 4 is less than several centuries, but the point is valid. Bunk is Bunk, and all evidence we currently have points towards Metastable Metallic Hydrogen not existing at the predicted pressures and temps.

[KerikBalm]

2020-1971 is 49 years...

That model that predicted metastability also predicted formation at pressures that were easily achieved not long after.

This theory has been bunk for about 40 years, but the idea that a new theory might predict the same thing is attractive, and people's wishes kept being expressed in scientific language for one reason or another, but there is no science to support it.

As no-one can point to any science to support it aside from a disproven theory from nearly 50 years ago, and post promoting it should be forbidden content according to forum rule 2.2h

...

Yet the ksp 2 devs have put in content that should be forbidden according to the forum rules, so I do not seriously expect rule 2.2h to be enforced in this case.

[Space Nerd]

Just my opinion:I'm welcome to technobabble tech if it looks like a rocket engine, has a exhaust plume, not overpowered, and has a name that sounds "futuristic".

And Metastable MH fits all of them.

(I play KSP mostly for its somewhat realistic aerodynamic simulation and orbital mechanics.)

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

You don't "Replace" it at all; you rework the models to resemble NSWR's using Liquid Hydrogen, Methane or Ammonia. And then you drop them into the same places in the progression and crafting that their Purple Space Magic parents would've occupied.

Presuming that NSRW's will not be already part of the game (in that case you don't even have a suitable replacement), that requires:

1. Redoing all the engines assets
2. Redoing all the tech tree related parts
3. Removing all the already made assets from the game
4. Researching an setting all the behavior of the new engines
5. Re-balancing the gameplay around the newly added engines.
6. Reworking any radiation mechanics to account for the lack of non-nuclear options

Exactly the "months of work" that I was talking about.

 

3 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

It's been in doubt ever since 2016, and especially after the lowest pressures thought to create Normal Metallic Hydrogen turned out to be inconclusive. Leading to the needed Pressures for Metallic Hydrogen being higher, and breaking the assumptions that the model that predicted Metastable Metallic Hydrogen worked with. 4 is less than several centuries, but the point is valid. Bunk is Bunk, and all evidence we currently have points towards Metastable Metallic Hydrogen not existing at the predicted pressures and temps.

There's a giant difference between something objective of current studies and which refutation still has to reach the general public and generally treated as a best case scenario "what-if" even before and something that has been labeled as pseudoscience for at least a century and a half.

I understand the hyperbole when used as such but actually pretending that the argument is even remotely similar to the addition of alchemy or Phlogiston is beyond dishonest, it's deliberately misleading.

And equally deliberately misleading is this BS:

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

This theory has been bunk for about 40 years,

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Master39

[DStaal]

5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Presuming that NSRW's will not be already part of the game (in that case you don't even have a suitable replacement), that requires:

1. Redoing all the engines assets
2. Redoing all the tech tree related parts
3. Removing all the already made assets from the game
4. Researching an setting all the behavior of the new engines
5. Re-balancing the gameplay around the newly added engines.
6. Reworking ant radiation mechanics to account for the lack of non-nuclear options

Exactly the "months of work" that I was talking about.

I'll admit my initial 30 minutes was a bit flippant (and I even knew it at the time), but I don't think it would take months either.  The suggested NTR engines as a replacement are fairly close in most respects:

- They use the same propellent.  (Hydrogen.)

- They operate at the same temperature.

- They have similar ISP.

- They have similar thrust.

Given the theoretical nature of any of these options, ISP and thrust could be left alone - the theoretical ranges overlap, so the values would work in either engine.  That easily covers #4 and #5: They are drop-in replacements.  Art assets will depend a bit on how they're set up, but at the very least nozzle design is limited by operational environment, propellent composition, and operating temperature and pressure.  Both NTR and MMH use hydrogen as a propellent and exhaust at the same temperature/pressure ratios (as they'd have to to get the same ISP and TWR), so nozzle design can be carried over.  NTRs would have a larger reaction chamber however, so there might need to be some art assets for that.  (However the same composition/temperature/pressure mix governs how plumes appear, so you could use the same plumes - though if you wanted to tweak them to include a bit of Uranium spectra that wouldn't hurt.)

I can't speak to the tech tree - that could be a non-issue, or it could be a major issue, depending on how they have it laid out.  Note that related parts would all be similar as well - with the exception of dedicated MMH storage, which would be dropped.  I suspect they already have Hydrogen storage, so you just continue to use those tanks.  (Uranium storage would be a change, but other engines they've shown also use Uranium so again I suspect they needed the storage options for other things anyway.)

Radiation mechanics could be a large balance change in end-game.  However, they've shown early and mid-game engines which do have radiation outputs and shadow shields, so you could have the player keep using them.  The real major difference there would be for takeoff/landing in inhabited areas - and the derated MMH-with-water solution they've shown for that would have similar ISP/thrust to high-end *chemical* engines, and you already need a two-fuel tank system there as well: One of which is Hydrogen in both cases so you're at least very close there as well.  (You could even postulate a dual-mode NTR/Chemical design that can be switched over depending on the situation. That would be an extreme engineering challenge - but it's still an *engineering* challenge.)

[Vanamonde]

Please do not invoke forum rules as an attempt to win an argument. The rules do not take sides. 

Some comments have been removed. 

[mcwaffles2003]

8 hours ago, Master39 said:

I don't what to put at doubt your good faith so I'll just consider it a very bizzarre and personal take on the argument (a very convenient one).

I have no reason to argue out of bad faith and in what way is it bizarre? You're just dismissing my statement without actually addressing it and I'm the one possibly arguing out of bad faith....

8 hours ago, Master39 said:

Radiation and fuel refining/crafting seems to be gameplay elements and unless you're suggesting a mere replacing "metallic hydrogen" with "liquid explodium that, somehow, behave just like metallic hydrogen would have if it were metastable" (thing that wouldn't make the game any more or less realistic)  you're talking about messing with a good portion of the progression balance, a good portion of the crafting tree and a good part of the engine assets wasting all the time that it took to make them in the first place and then all the time that it will take to remove and replace them and redesign/rebalance all the linked gameplay features.

But metastable metallic hydrogen is liquid explodium....Meanwhile a liquid core NTR is scientifically sound. If the new engine is placed in the same spot as the metallic hydrogen engine while having nearly identical stats the progression balance remains unaltered as does the tech tree if it is also place where metallic hydrogen engines were. 

You accused me of possibly arguing out of bad faith (without addressing what I had actually said but instead dismissing it) yet immediately move on to pure hyperbole here.

8 hours ago, Master39 said:

I would prefer people being honest and not pretending that something that has been put at doubt in the last few months and still regarded as "the holy grail of rocket propulsion" everywhere is close to things that have been considered pseudo science for decades if not centuries.

Will you please stop implying I am arguing dishonestly, unless of course this is just a matter of psychological projection, then by all means go ahead.

Who is it that is regarding mmH as the holy grail and why does appealing to this secret mass matter? Also, it hasn't been put at doubt, it has been demonstrated as incorrect and no longer has ground to stand on as a hypothesis. It's domain of existence was looked into and nothing was there. Also, why does it matter when something was proved wrong? If it is wrong, it is wrong...

Also, last few months? Here's a paper in 2017

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04900.pdf:

Quote

The possibility of metastable metallic hydrogen has been investigated in detail. This was considered from two approaches, by an analysis of: the BCT structures (stable above molecular dissociation); and the prediction of new candidate ones at 0 GPa. The results obtained are self-consistent, and provide strong evidence regarding this possibility. The results in Section I are concisely summarized by the processes undergone on the PES of hydrogen, as the pressure is removed (following molecular dissociation):

• (a) At (relatively) high pressures (> 300 GPa): the PES of (atomic) metallic hydrogen is well defined; and it remains qualitatively similar below molecular dissociation.
• (b) At intermediate pressures (200–300 GPa): the energy barriers of metallic hydrogen on the PES collapse; while those of the (completely) molecular phase harden.
• (c) At lower pressures (< 200 GPa): the PES of molecular hydrogen is well defined. From these results, we conclude that (atomic) metallic hydrogen is metastable; but only to 300–200 GPa. Below 200 GPa, metallic hydrogen has no region of stability.

From these results, we conclude that (atomic) metallic hydrogen is metastable; but only to 300–200 GPa. Below 200 GPa, metallic hydrogen has no region of stability.

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

You don't "Replace" it at all; you rework the models to resemble NSWR's using Liquid Hydrogen, Methane or Ammonia. And then you drop them into the same places in the progression and crafting that their Purple Space Magic parents would've occupied.

At the most you end up trashing a few models; which wouldn't take "Months" to remake in any world where people are doing this 8 hours a day as part of an entire team. The rest (Fuel, Tankage, Radiation cones, Thermal properties) can be automated via configs if KSP2 is even slightly like KSP with Module Manager included stock.

It's been in doubt ever since 2016, and especially after the lowest pressures thought to create Normal Metallic Hydrogen turned out to be inconclusive. Leading to the needed Pressures for Metallic Hydrogen being higher, and breaking the assumptions that the model that predicted Metastable Metallic Hydrogen worked with. 4 is less than several centuries, but the point is valid. Bunk is Bunk, and all evidence we currently have points towards Metastable Metallic Hydrogen not existing at the predicted pressures and temps.

Assuming NSWR is nuclear salt water, its an entire wrong engine type: it will be an large engine with an high minimum trust who is very radioactive, yes it has also much higher ISP, metallic hydrogen is much closer to nerva at 1700 isp maximum but you can build these engines pretty small especially if you add some extra hydrogen for cooling reducing ISP but increasing trust. 

The radiation overlay tool indicates radiation will have an role, probably in giving us lots of cool engines but forcing us to build long lattice tower style hard sci-fi ships who are not designed to land. 
No more strapping two LV-N on the side of an hitchhiker module  
Part is realism part is an gameplay element like how LV-N has low trust and TWR so it does not make all other engines obsolete.

The tech progression and challenges roadmap was probably set in stone pretty early, yes you will balance it but not turn it inside out. 
Don't like metallic hydrogen but accept it, we also don't know how to make an fusion engine who don't require power input and even they have an tech readynes level like orion pulse nuclear. 

[Deddly]

@mcwaffles2003, that 2017 study has been heavily criticised by other experts in the field and their claim to have produced metallic hydrogen has been largely dismissed. 

[mcwaffles2003]

15 minutes ago, Deddly said:

@mcwaffles2003, that 2017 study has been heavily criticised by other experts in the field and their claim to have produced metallic hydrogen has been largely dismissed. 

Citation?

Also, is that also the case for the one in @Dragon01's sig? Both papers are from 2017.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.05300.pdf:

Quote

The work of Brovman fares less well: although we find that their calculations showing metastability of metallic hydrogen against affine deformation are valid, the stricter criterion of phonon stability is not met. As a consequence, the expected lifetime of putative metallic hydrogen at ambient condition can be measured in femtoseconds

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DStaal said:

Given the theoretical nature of any of these options, ISP and thrust could be left alone - the theoretical ranges overlap, so the values would work in either engine.  That easily covers #4 and #5: They are drop-in replacements.  Art assets will depend a bit on how they're set up, but at the very least nozzle design is limited by operational environment, propellent composition, and operating temperature and pressure.  Both NTR and MMH use hydrogen as a propellent and exhaust at the same temperature/pressure ratios (as they'd have to to get the same ISP and TWR), so nozzle design can be carried over.  NTRs would have a larger reaction chamber however, so there might need to be some art assets for that.  (However the same composition/temperature/pressure mix governs how plumes appear, so you could use the same plumes - though if you wanted to tweak them to include a bit of Uranium spectra that wouldn't hurt.)

I can't speak to the tech tree - that could be a non-issue, or it could be a major issue, depending on how they have it laid out.  Note that related parts would all be similar as well - with the exception of dedicated MMH storage, which would be dropped.  I suspect they already have Hydrogen storage, so you just continue to use those tanks.  (Uranium storage would be a change, but other engines they've shown also use Uranium so again I suspect they needed the storage options for other things anyway.)

Radiation mechanics could be a large balance change in end-game.  However, they've shown early and mid-game engines which do have radiation outputs and shadow shields, so you could have the player keep using them.  The real major difference there would be for takeoff/landing in inhabited areas - and the derated MMH-with-water solution they've shown for that would have similar ISP/thrust to high-end *chemical* engines, and you already need a two-fuel tank system there as well: One of which is Hydrogen in both cases so you're at least very close there as well.  (You could even postulate a dual-mode NTR/Chemical design that can be switched over depending on the situation. That would be an extreme engineering challenge - but it's still an *engineering* challenge.)

All of this sounds to me a significant redesign of a non negligible part of the game even in the best case scenario, I'm not arguing that it would take all the time in the world to do it, I'm just saying that in no way the time lost over some other feature is worth it.

 

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I have no reason to argue out of bad faith and in what way is it bizarre? You're just dismissing my statement without actually addressing it and I'm the one possibly arguing out of bad faith....

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.

 

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If the new engine is placed in the same spot as the metallic hydrogen engine while having nearly identical stats the progression balance remains unaltered as does the tech tree if it is also place where metallic hydrogen engines were. 

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.  

 

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

why does it matter when something was proved wrong? If it is wrong, it is wrong...

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.

 

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

3 hours ago, Deddly said:

@mcwaffles2003, that 2017 study has been heavily criticised by other experts in the field and their claim to have produced metallic hydrogen has been largely dismissed. 

Citation?

Also, is that also the case for the one in @Dragon01's sig? Both papers are from 2017.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.05300.pdf:

Quote

The work of Brovman fares less well: although we find that their calculations showing metastability of metallic hydrogen against affine deformation are valid, the stricter criterion of phonon stability is not met. As a consequence, the expected lifetime of putative metallic hydrogen at ambient condition can be measured in femtoseconds

 

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.

[KerikBalm]

10 hours ago, Deddly said:

@mcwaffles2003, that 2017 study has been heavily criticised by other experts in the field and their claim to have produced metallic hydrogen has been largely dismissed. 

You seem to be confusing 2 different papers, just because they are both from 2017.

Also, the claims of production in the paper that you seem to be thinking of were not dismissed, but treated with skepticism because of perceived flaws in the way they measured the pressure (likely overestimated), and that their machine broke preventing replication.

The 2019 paper actually seems to confirm the earlier report. They report formation of metallic hydrogen about 20 GPa lower than the previous paper, if I recall correctly... which actually lines up nicely with the previous report when you consider the pressures that they likely achieved (again, it is thought that they were overestimating the pressures that they achieved, and the true pressure was lower)

Plus, again, no theory that is compatible with observations predicts substantial metastability.

It's pseudoscience.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

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

OK, this one needs some explanation. Full article here (not a paper, it's a news article from Nature): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00149-7

Quote

It can certainly be argued that a definite proof for metallic hydrogen would come only from a measurement of the sample’s electrical conductivity at high pressure as a function of temperature. Solid hydrogen should exhibit a high level of electrical conduction that should then decrease as the sample temperature is raised. However, even with experimental techniques developed in the past few decades to study condensed matter in extreme conditions, electrical-transport measurements of hydrogen remain a huge challenge^9,10.

Basically, we have no means to directly verify whether it's really metallic. The way metallicity is defined, electrical conductivity measurements would be the crown evidence. Therefore, when scientists say "we still don't have definite proof", they're acknowledging that while we might have pretty definitely observed a phase transition, we don't really know 100% sure that it's to metal, although our theoretical calculations predict that. Hence:

Quote

Nevertheless, Loubeyre and co-workers’ findings should be considered as a close-to-definite proof of dense hydrogen reaching a metallic state in extreme-pressure conditions. Computational predictions of the pressure at which molecular hydrogen enters a metallic state still lack accuracy, because they require many different quantum-mechanical corrections that are difficult to address. However, the experimental value of 425 GPa agrees with calculations¹¹ that predict a transition in hydrogen to a different solid phase at a similar pressure.

We do have a forge, it just can't do everything we'd like it to. This is evidence enough, though. Notice the "agrees with calculations" part. We have a theory that predicts a nonmetal-to-metal phase transition. We have a phase transition that occurs at a point close to what the theory predicted. We can therefore expect, with high probability of being right, that this transition is indeed nonmetal-to-metal. This is how science works. Of course, as this still isn't directly verified, the statement in question remains a prediction, which, if we can directly measure it, will serve to confirm the theory further if true.

When dealing with scientists, you have to get used to less definitive language than usual. A statement like a "likely prediction" stands for "yeah, we're pretty sure", for purposes of discussion such as this one. 

11 hours ago, Deddly said:

@mcwaffles2003, that 2017 study has been heavily criticised by other experts in the field and their claim to have produced metallic hydrogen has been largely dismissed. 

It has been corroborated by the 2019 one, though. The experts were skeptical at the time, but since the new results came out, the study had been vindicated. In addition, we have a theory now (presumably in the paywalled part of the article), the calculations that peg the transition at 425GPa do not feature metastability. My university's library should have access to Nature, while I can't share the article itself for obvious reasons, I will be able to quote some excerpts once I get my access set up.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

We do have a forge, it just can't do everything we'd like it to. This is evidence enough, though. Notice the "agrees with calculations" part.

I already know what is the situation with the research, but thanks for the article is a useful recap of what we're talking about here.

My point though was another, I'm seeing here people comparing metallic hydrogen to theories that were disproved 250 years ago (and then used in all sorts of fantasy settings becoming a staple of some of them) and I think that it's more than a little misleading knowing that we've confirmed the observations less than a year ago and that the generalist public has still a lot of catch up to do.

As far as required suspension of disbelief goes having metallic hydrogen is a far cry from renaming the chemical plants "alchemy stations" (even if probably that's what you need to make that magical "ore" of KSP1 to work) or using flying brooms or dragons as landers (Nate said the metallic hydrogen engine they've shown it's called the "Wyvern" that's a completely different creature).

It's also a far cry from wanting things like FTL or warp gates, but somehow those are more acceptable and less controversial.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Master39 said:

It's also a far cry from wanting things like FTL or warp gates, but somehow those are more acceptable and less controversial.

Alcubierre drive is actually on the exact same level as metallic hydrogen. Not quite forbidden by fundamental laws, but ultimately unsupported by science. And we don't want it, either. It's just that the devs have already confirmed Alcubierre drive will not be in. 

It also doesn't matter whether a theory was disproved 250 years or 250 days ago; it's just as disproved. So yes, the comparisons are apt, you just don't realize it/refuse to accept it. A disproven theory is a disproven theory. Pholgiston had serious mathematical backing, but did not agree with experiments. Metallic hydrogen at 2.4GPa (the prediction made by the theory that also predicted metastability) also had a serious mathematical backing, but in the end, did not agree with experiments. In physics, a theory is a mathematical model with a physical interpretation. What we have in both cases is a mathematical model that doesn't work. Neither can be used to make predictions, and neither can be used to interpret the experimental results.

[KerikBalm]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

My point though was another, I'm seeing here people comparing metallic hydrogen to theories that were disproved 250 years ago (and then used in all sorts of fantasy settings becoming a staple of some of them) and I think that it's more than a little misleading knowing that we've confirmed the observations less than a year ago and that the generalist public has still a lot of catch up to do.

 

The only theory predicting metastability was disproven around 40 years ago with observations that contradicted the theory.

That's not the same thing as an observation that agrees with theories that predict no substantial metastability, which required making it (2017 and 2019).

[kerbiloid]

The Alcubierre drive differs from the metastable MeH.

The MeH replaces realistic nuclear designs without adding anything to gameplay.
It's an unnecessary complication, an addition of excessive entity, Occam doesn't bless it.

The Alcubierre or any other FTL drive expands the gameplay to the degree which cannot be provided by known realistic designs.
It's a fictional entity, but it doesn't make to go wrong way, it makes a road where it didn't exist.

Edited October 11, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

The devs have said that Alcubierre drive will not be in, and nobody is really arguing for its inclusion. I would be slightly less opposed to Alcubierre drive, but FTL isn't really necessary for KSP2.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Guest

[Lewie]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The MeH replaces realistic nuclear designs without adding anything to gameplay.

It's a fictional entity, but it doesn't make to go wrong way, it makes a road where it didn't exist.

With all due respect, I’m sure that the mh engine is going to have some importance to gameplay. It’s probably going to have an impact on gameplay, seeing as it’s going to be unlocked by the player sooner or alter. (And it’s probably needed for the eventual move to interstellar travel)

And yes, it is fictional. Just like a fully developed orion drive. Fictional just like ksp and ksp2. It’s just a game. 

(Am I the only one that’s still in disbelief that there’s a ksp2? I still find it amazing, honestly)

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, Lewie said:

It’s probably going to have an impact on gameplay, seeing as it’s going to be unlocked by the player sooner or alter. (And it’s probably needed for the eventual move to interstellar travel)

KSPI-E mod provides a sequence of realistic technologies covering that gap, so MeH is a fictional replacement of realistic steps.

[Lewie]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

KSPI-E mod provides a sequence of realistic technologies covering that gap, so MeH is a fictional replacement of realistic steps.

Yeah, but can’t one argue that mh is about as feasible as the Daedalus engine? Or the torch engine? Those suckers would emit so many x-rays (and probably a crap ton of unholy rays) That any ship would be reduced to spag in seconds. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

It also doesn't matter whether a theory was disproved 250 years or 250 days ago; it's just as disproved.

Yes that matters, we're talking about games and, generally entertainment products, in this context it makes all the difference between fantasy, and the various and arbitrary levels of sci-fi. 

While a game with metastable metallic hydrogen is something that we could argue if it goes in the "near future" vs the "hard sci-fi" genre, a game with Alchemy or Phlogiston goes outright in the fantasy genre.

We're not talking about the scientific plausibility of metallic hydrogen engines IRL, I would argue that they would be a bit of a stretch even before discovering that it's not metastable (like a lot of the other highly speculative tech that are feasible on paper), we're discussing its addition to a entertainment product as a gameplay element.

 

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

The only theory predicting metastability was disproven around 40 years ago with observations that contradicted the theory.

Provide sources from the '80 that prove that metallic hydrogen isn't metastable. Not shed doubts, not a competing theory or another model, the proof.

[snip]

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The MeH replaces realistic nuclear designs without adding anything to gameplay.

Counter-intuitively the addition of metallic hydrogen engines could instead increase the overall realism of the game by not ignoring the radiation hazards of the nuclear alternatives while at the same time it could provide a choice/balance between a fuel that's refined from cheap resource but with complex machinery and the more exotic fuels of the alternative designs.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Vanamonde

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, Lewie said:

Yeah, but can’t one argue that mh is about as feasible as the Daedalus engine? Or the torch engine?

Afaik, it's closer to the liquid-core or low-end gas-core nuclear engines, far from the torch drives.