What areas of future technology would you like to see?

[t_v]

We already know that future propulsion technology will be in the game, with technologies ranging from nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion, Daedalus) to low-thrust propulsion (standard ion engine, VASIMIR, Hall thruster?), even to metallic hydrogen. However, spaceflight as we begin sending people to Mars and beyond will require advances in more areas than just propulsion. What future technologies would you like to see in KSP 2 that we have not really seen yet?

For one, I would like very advanced composites. Material science has shown amazing progress recently, and I would love to see parts that have ludicrously high stress, impact, or temperature tolerances, that are very light for the role they have, or that have other properties that interact with gameplay systems (for example, if wear and tear due to dust or atmospheric particles was a thing, materials that don't wear down and actively repel particles)

And secondly, I would love to see advances in energy storage. Ion batteries are great, but there are so many possibilities out there that have roughly the same chances of being viable as future propulsion proposals, and I would like to see all my colony's energy capacity represented in a single 3.75m part storing a huge amount of anti-iron. 

What would you like to see?

[Rutabaga22]

I'd like to see power generation stuff. We know there will most likely be fission and fusion reactors, geothermal, and wind. But what about things like hydro? Hydro plants would be great for bases on any planet with an ocean and/or rivers.

[Admiral Fluffy]

I would like to see moar boosters

Also some water/underwater stuff.

[Vl3d]

Solar / laser sails

and..

Exoskeletons / mechs

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

Im just gonna stay up on my soap box and say LIFE SUPPORT. Just like with engines or mining or power generation it wants to be simplified but keeping people alive in space and on other planets is a huge challenge that'll be critical to colonization and I hope it gets at least some thoughtfully integrated nod:

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/MELiSSA_life_support_project_an_innovation_network_in_support_to_space_exploration

[t_v]

I don’t know too much about life support but I completely agree. I wonder if people will find a better way to reclaim CO2 than using LiOH, which as far as I can tell is not really a renewable process. 

[mattinoz]

On 7/25/2022 at 9:41 AM, Pthigrivi said:

Im just gonna stay up on my soap box and say LIFE SUPPORT. Just like with engines or mining or power generation it wants to be simplified but keeping people alive in space and on other planets is a huge challenge that'll be critical to colonization and I hope it gets at least some thoughtfully integrated nod:

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/MELiSSA_life_support_project_an_innovation_network_in_support_to_space_exploration

In a similar vain 3D printing with Lunar/Mars/Mum/Duna dirt would be cool addition to game for more advanced colonies maybe not super freeform. 

[BowlerHatGuy3]

On 7/24/2022 at 2:57 PM, Vl3d said:

Solar / laser sails

and..

Exoskeletons / mechs

 

I don’t know about the mechs, but solar sails would be awesome.

[t_v]

I’m glad that the mechs were brought up, because in our real-life space program, robotic suits might become immensely useful for safe and capable repairs (although I doubt they would emulate the human form unless necessary). Stuff like this is not always thought about but still represents important parts of future technology. 

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, t_v said:

(although I doubt they would emulate the human form unless necessary)

Because a bipedal walking gun would be any more efficient than a car with a Canadarm strapped to the top.

[stephensmat]

Space Elevator. I know, it's a more extreme level of 'Future Tech', but so is interstellar flight. I think it should be unlocked when you get to the 'Interstellar level. Make LKO so easy you barely have to think about it, when you get to the interstellar level.

[Bej Kerman]

51 minutes ago, stephensmat said:

Space Elevator. I know, it's a more extreme level of 'Future Tech', but so is interstellar flight. I think it should be unlocked when you get to the 'Interstellar level. Make LKO so easy you barely have to think about it, when you get to the interstellar level.

You're completely underestimating how difficult a space elevator is to build. Interstellar travel only requires you to build a structure that doesn't need to be much longer than the Burj Khalifa and invent rockets that can sustain propulsion and high thrust. A space elevator requires you to build materials millions of times stronger than those found in skyscrapers. You can't just stack bricks to orbit. It does not work like that. You won't be seeing space elevators until way after we've perfected interstellar travel, outside the scope of KSP 2.

[Catto]

Skyscrapers with daedali on them

(sorry i don't know the plural of daedalus, please tell me and i will correct my mistake)

[t_v]

4 hours ago, Catto said:

sorry i don't know the plural of daedalus

I don’t think anyone has had to think about that ludicrous concept before KSP 2. This is going to be a fun game. 
 

7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You're completely underestimating how difficult a space elevator is to build. Interstellar travel only requires you to build a structure that doesn't need to be much longer than the Burj Khalifa and invent rockets that can sustain propulsion and high thrust. A space elevator requires you to build materials millions of times stronger than those found in skyscrapers. You can't just stack bricks to orbit. It does not work like that. You won't be seeing space elevators until way after we've perfected interstellar travel, outside the scope of KSP 2.

I completely agree that building one on Kerbin would require resources and technology beyond counting, but for smaller bodies, it could work. Source: some other person’s opinion:

These things aren’t suggestions for the game necessarily, so what do you think of the real-life possibility of space elevators on low mass bodies?

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, t_v said:

I completely agree that building one on Kerbin would require resources and technology beyond counting, but for smaller bodies, it could work.

Then it'd just be easier to launch stuff to orbit.

[t_v]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Then it'd just be easier to launch stuff to orbit.

Fair enough. For me at least, launching for 300 m/s and getting a better oberth effect is better than launching into synchronous for 0 m/s, just because it's less hassle. 

[Guest]

Problem with space elevator is that they just subtract gameplay, It makes ever so slightly less important to build launch centers and colonies on lower gravity worlds, and it just removes a lot of rocketry from the game without replacing it with anything nearly as complex and/or involved and creative.

IRL a space elevator is a billion times more complex than a reusable spaceplane, but in game the spaceplane offer several orders of magnitude more gamplay than a mere elevator.

[t_v]

59 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Problem with space elevator is that they just subtract gameplay, It makes ever so slightly less important to build launch centers and colonies on lower gravity worlds, and it just removes a lot of rocketry from the game without replacing it with anything nearly as complex and/or involved and creative.

IRL a space elevator is a billion times more complex than a reusable spaceplane, but in game the spaceplane offer several orders of magnitude more gamplay than a mere elevator.

I think I’m terms of gameplay, a space elevator is akin to an orbiting base with a really, really good supply route to the ground base. Instead of launching your rockets from the ground all the time, you can build and launch them directly into orbit. Similar to train lines, I am in support of them because they can help drastically reduce end-game grind, depending on the implementation of both supply routes and the trains/space elevators. On the other hand, I don’t see myself using orbital bases on small bodies since the delta-v requirements are so low, so I’d also see limited usage of space elevators. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, t_v said:

I think I’m terms of gameplay, a space elevator is akin to an orbiting base with a really, really good supply route to the ground base. Instead of launching your rockets from the ground all the time, you can build and launch them directly into orbit. Similar to train lines, I am in support of them because they can help drastically reduce end-game grind, depending on the implementation of both supply routes and the trains/space elevators. On the other hand, I don’t see myself using orbital bases on small bodies since the delta-v requirements are so low, so I’d also see limited usage of space elevators. 

With an orbital base there's space for growth, you can change, improve or redesign your supply routes. With a space elevator you basically make two colonies/bases one orbital and the other on the ground, become one, effectively halving the required gameplay and removing all the "getting to orbit and managing delta-v" portion of that gameplay.

[t_v]

37 minutes ago, Master39 said:

With an orbital base there's space for growth, you can change, improve or redesign your supply routes. With a space elevator you basically make two colonies/bases one orbital and the other on the ground, become one, effectively halving the required gameplay and removing all the "getting to orbit and managing delta-v" portion of that gameplay.

This is why I mentioned that it depends on the implementation a lot, because that was the misunderstanding in the trains thread. I am still of the opinion that there will be reasonable limits to how often you can repeat a supply route (launching the same ship every 30s seems a bit silly to me, even compared to space elevators)  and how flexible those routes are to change (what happens when you swap your transported Ore with the much more delicate Antimatter?). This creates gameplay issues when, for example, a player is trying to change up their supply routes to an orbiting base by replacing one propellant with another at the same quantity. If they had 10 different supply routes set up, all operating at maximum capacity, to ferry that one propellant, they now need to spend a lot of time getting the capacity of the new propellant up to the levels of the old one. 
 

Another point to notice is that by the time your base has the resources to bridge upwards to an orbiting colony, you have already flown dozens, maybe hundreds of missions to that orbiting colony for it to be at the point that connecting it via essentially a giant umbilical is worth it. Essentially, you will not be missing out on any gameplay that you have not already grinded with a variety of supply routes.

And of course, this is just one implementation. It could be that you are able to scale your supply routes to ludicrous levels and swap out materials easily (because let’s face it, even though it cuts out gameplay, running the 14th resource up to the colony is textbook grind) but then, those quality of life features take out the same gameplay that space elevators do, even earlier in the game. 
 

And lastly, we’re only talking about the supply routes here, right? Because both the base in the ground and the orbital base can develop and expand their capabilities as bases, and the only gameplay that is cut out is doing the upteenth supply route (which in my opinion is either grindy or abstracted out of gameplay). 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

This is why I mentioned that it depends on the implementation a lot, because that was the misunderstanding in the trains thread. I am still of the opinion that there will be reasonable limits to how often you can repeat a supply route (launching the same ship every 30s seems a bit silly to me, even compared to space elevators)  and how flexible those routes are to change (what happens when you swap your transported Ore with the much more delicate Antimatter?). This creates gameplay issues when, for example, a player is trying to change up their supply routes to an orbiting base by replacing one propellant with another at the same quantity. If they had 10 different supply routes set up, all operating at maximum capacity, to ferry that one propellant, they now need to spend a lot of time getting the capacity of the new propellant up to the levels of the old one. 
 

Another point to notice is that by the time your base has the resources to bridge upwards to an orbiting colony, you have already flown dozens, maybe hundreds of missions to that orbiting colony for it to be at the point that connecting it via essentially a giant umbilical is worth it. Essentially, you will not be missing out on any gameplay that you have not already grinded with a variety of supply routes.

And of course, this is just one implementation. It could be that you are able to scale your supply routes to ludicrous levels and swap out materials easily (because let’s face it, even though it cuts out gameplay, running the 14th resource up to the colony is textbook grind) but then, those quality of life features take out the same gameplay that space elevators do, even earlier in the game. 
 

And lastly, we’re only talking about the supply routes here, right? Because both the base in the ground and the orbital base can develop and expand their capabilities as bases, and the only gameplay that is cut out is doing the upteenth supply route (which in my opinion is either grindy or abstracted out of gameplay). 

I'd limit supply routes with production times, If your craft is reusable then it's fuel production and the number of copies of that same craft you build.

Even if you don't want construction times you're going to be limited by the resource and fuel mining/production/refining speeds, and you could also add a cooldown  timer for docking ports and landing/launch pads.

As for repeating missions for different supply routes standardizing cargo capacity (with standard container units) should come before standardizing the whole transport network. You don't fly a 100 tons of iron plane between colony A and colony B, and then do the same for a 100 tons of snacks one. You fly a 100 1ton containers capable plane between the two colonies then set up the routes based on planes availability, number of them and cargo capacity.

One plane doing the loop between A, B and back to A every 2 hours? Good, you have 100 container in one direction and 100 back every 2 hours, double that if you have a second plane, both planes can travel with 50 containers of iron, 30 of snacks and 20 of spare parts. And you can change that dynamically.

 

Not strictly an area of future tech, but sure enough I would want modern days logistics within the supply run system.

[Pthigrivi]

I don't know if space elevators take any gameplay away, but as mentioned with supply routes they also don't really add anything, and they create huge number of implementation challenges both for devs and for players. Definitely agree on how nice it would be to swap out resources so long as the mass/volume wasn't exceeded, and for sure as players get crazy (and they will) you're gonna need a whole package of UI tools to make sure your inputs and outputs are balanced. This is how Frostpunk handles it, many other games have similar economy tabs. The trick is a lot of the time you're going to have multiple colonies producing and shipping different resources and making a small change on one might destabilize others if you're running on tight margins.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[SciMan]

How about stuff that's not space elevators but is still a way to get something into orbit that doesn't involve rockets all the way up?

I'm talking about things like mass drivers, Lofstrom Loops, Laser/Microwave Launch, heck even Rotovators, that kind of thing.
Advantage: Much, much, MUCH easier to design the materials for compared to a space elevator even on a reduced gravity world.
Disadvantage: Launch happens into a pretty much "fixed" orbit, all you get is a timing choice, the altitude, eccentricity, and inclination are all fixed by where the launch site is on the surface or where you attach to the rotovator tether (rotovators and laser launch are the most flexible of these options, but laser launch doesn't quite count since it's still sort of a type of rocket).

Basically, they're all just variations on a method to move the power source from "on the rocket" to "on the ground" and only needing a rocket at apoapsis to circularize the burn (except the rotovator, which can send things to orbit, escape velocity, suborbital, or anywhere in between, and works both for launching and landing payloads).

These things never get the attention they deserve. Some of them we could potentially even make happen RIGHT NOW with tech we have RIGHT NOW (except maybe needing a bigger rocket to send up some parts of some of them, like the rotovator).

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone focuses on the space elevator because it's the simplest concept to understand. The problem is that with only a tiny bit more complexity, you get something we could actually build, starting TODAY.

EDIT:
Things like this could be an ideal means to get raw resources from the surface to orbit, to then be collected up and loaded on to a vessel more suited for the depths of interplanetary space.
It would trade "colony power output" increase, for "colony fuel consumption" decrease. Additionally, constructing it would obviously require a large amount of raw materials, proportional to the velocity you want to get out of the system, so it would be able to be constructed in "chunks" of a fixed velocity increment, and then on the end of the track you'd be able to set the elevation angle relative to the horizon for the payload's trajectory. This means that while you might not have the space at your Tylo colony site to get up to full orbital velocity, so instead you might opt for a track that is much shorter but the payload is released at a significantly upward trajectory compared to the horizon, that way it still gives an overall reduction in gravity losses but you can use much more efficient, lower thrust engines to circularize the orbit instead of having to rely on high thrust-to-weight engines which tend to have lower specific impulse, thereby increasing the payload mass ratio of a vessel sent to Tylo orbit from such an acceleration track.

Mass drivers would would be especially viable on bodies that have no atmosphere and low gravity (which usually go hand-in-hand at least in the inner solar system).
For instance, on Gilly you'd need to accelerate something to less than 100 m/s to send it to Gilly escape velocity.

Even Minmus is an excellent candidate for this (finally a good use for the vast flat plains of Minmus, might need a ramp on the end of the track tho).

Lofstrom Loops are basically mass drivers but for planets that have a significant atmosphere, because they're dynamically suspended above the atmosphere by the velocity of a circulating loop of iron segments held away from the walls of the tube that protects that loop from the atmosphere by magnetic levitation (or during startup/shutdown, regular old roller bearings).

Edited July 29, 2022 by SciMan

[t_v]

14 minutes ago, SciMan said:

I'm talking about things like mass drivers, Lofstrom Loops, Laser/Microwave Launch, heck even Rotovators, that kind of thing.

Thanks for bringing this up, now I know what a lofstrom loop is! (Although to me, that sounds like a small, sideways space elevator with a lot more chances of failure). I’ll admit; mass drivers are really fun for me, to the point that parts and kerbals suffer from g-force damage after too much engineering time. I would like to see tech adapted for mass drivers, like longer versions of Orion pusher plates that allow for much larger impulses. 

[SciMan]

Lofstrom loops are a lot more possible than a space elevator because they're a DYNAMICALLY supported structure (as in that loop of iron inside the thing is moving faster than the local circular orbital velocity), sort of similarly to how a chain fountain works, but massively scaled up.

Actually, speaking of "chain fountains", there's another one I forgot about.
Space Fountains. It's like a space elevator, but it doesn't need "uber-strong materials" to build it. It does need a very reliable source of power, and a very finely tuned control system. But it does what a space elevator does, in a way that we can actually (theoretically) build right now with pretty mundane materials as far as absolute strength goes (the magnets might be the hardest part, but weaker magnets just make the thing bigger and potentially more power-hungry, they don't make it less capable).

How it works is like this:
Just like a Lofstrom Loop, you have a loop of iron segments.
But instead of accelerating it horizontally along the surface until it's going faster than local orbital velocity, it is accelerated VERTICALLY.
The upward velocity of the segments is more than capable of bringing it up to geostationary orbit (and then quite a bit more, escape velocity is a good place to start if you want the upper platform to sit at geostationary orbit altitude).

The construction is as follows:
At the bottom, you have a gigantic magnet that takes downward-traveling parts of the loop of iron segments and re-directs them to go upwards, as well as a bunch of coils arranged to form a linear motor to impart further upward acceleration on to the segments (keeping the speed of the whole loop maintained, and then some margin to spare both for contingencies, startup/shutdown, and for actually performing useful work of lifting payloads to geostationary orbit).
The platform at the top has a similar gigantic magnet, however the purpose of that magnet is the reverse of the one on the ground. It bends the trajectory of upward-moving segments of the loop and re-directs them downwards. There are no acceleration coils at the top, however there likely would be trajectory control coils on both ends (with some form of thruster array at the top to cancel out any reaction forces from the control coils).

You can take this concept and scale it up or down as well.
In the smaller sense, the space fountain becomes a "Dynamic compression beam", because it uses dynamic forces to carry compression loads. Multiples of these can be used to build even larger buildings than current materials science would permit, without having to have the ground floor taken up mostly by structural elements and elevators.
In the larger sense, you get Dynamic Orbital Ring structures, which are "orbital" rings that use space-fountain type technology to stay suspended stationary above the surface of a planet while not having the requirement to be at geostationary altitude. This can be used to make multiple sets of rings around a planet, in any given direction.
Taking this concept even further, if you weave a dense enough network of these dynamic rings at a given altitude, you can build things suspended in the spaces between the dynamic ring members, leading to the concept of an "orbital super-shell". And if you put that around a star, with solar panels on the inside, you get a supra-stellar shell, or Dyson Sphere. Build that at the right altitude, and somehow manage to dissipate the heat, and you can build a habitable region on the OUTSIDE (not inside) of that Dyson Sphere, with a surface area in the range of hundreds of thousands of times the surface area of Earth.

So with that knowledge, you can see how the lowly Lofstrom Loop can be the start of a civilization moving up the Kardashev scale many notches (and 2 is "many" in this case, since just moving up 1 notch is something that would alter everyday life to something only remotely like what we currently know).