Higher time warp and hibernation instead of magic, unrealistic "warp drive o.O".

[AngelLestat]

my biased summary of kegereneku post:

Ignore all the things metioned by kegereneku given his lack of knowledge, comprension and logic.

I already proved that he was wrong on every thing he said or he thought in my previous post.

And the fact that he continue saying nosense and twisting each sencente with lies and ignorence is the proof that is not a rational being XD

Discuss with him is a lost of time.

Edited August 28, 2013 by AngelLestat

[Sean Mirrsen]

Ok. let's go back to the point of this discussion thread.

I think the main problem here is lack of knowledge about how much has to offer serius concept of interstellar propulsion. And the fact that light speed limit can be an advantage instead a barrier.

How much would we take to travel to the center of the galaxy "27000 ly"?

-With relativity at 99,999% light speed aprox 70 years.

-With imaginary FTL at 100c it will take 270 years.

And if you close more and more to the light speed you will reach a point that you will do it in just weaks. Of course the earth time lapsed it will be still 27000 years.

KSP will probably never have multiplayer because of the logistical difficulties of managing time warp of different players, and you propose it to tackle time dilation paradoxes. Eeyup.

News flash: the time spent back at Earth is still important. The 70 years of traveling to the center of the galaxy will be 70 years to the crew, sure, assuming time dilation is what it is. Now imagine doing that in KSP. Time dilation is the same as time warp. When you're on the ship, you can make time pass very quickly, but Kerbin remains in normal time, and all your infrastructure is doing nothing for decades.

First, the ion drives thrust is higher than normal just because we can not have any engine "on" in the time warp designed by squad.

But you will notice that you burn xenon gas a lot faster than in real live. So is the same!

So if we had a different timewarp mode for some kinds of propulsions where structure physics is not taken into account then it would be no need to modify ion engines. In fact you can reach higher delta V with ion engines in real live than in KSP.

Also you are wrong about how it will be incorporate real propulsion system in ksp.

IRL ion engines are much more varied than just "ion engines", and KSP does not specify which type they are (though they look kinda like Hall Effect thrusters). Plus IRL ion thrusters are much smaller and lighter than the 250Kg hunk of metal KSP has.

Yes! it will be a "little harded" than build an space station. But once you have all set up, then you can use it for any amount of travels that you want. And in the case that you dont wanna waste time in infracstructure needed, then you can download your favorite save file according to your tastes.

Now you're just attacking me. I said I like a challenge, but one of design and skill, not timewasting and sheer manual labor. If you would allow me to return the attack, to me you sound like the kind of person who deeply enjoys playing World of Warcraft et al. There is no fun to be had in turning a rocket design and piloting game into a civ management simulator with a horribly unconventional UI.

And is not only to probes!! Of course your first mission it will have a lot more of sense if you do it with probes. But if you want you can expand your collector and send kerbals.

Also we already need to set up a big infrastructure in space to send a manned mission to laythe, and the mission time it is like 4 years.

But it seems that you want a mission frame of 1 years without any infrastructure to send kerbals to other stars..

IS CRAZY!!!

Maybe for you it is. I had a disused refuelling station core sitting in LKO. I sent a cluster of NERVAs up to it and moved it to orbit Eeloo, completely off-phase, using an inverse bi-elliptic transfer around Sol to avoid waiting for a window. I got there in under a year. With a station. On a whim.

The mission frame with a KF drive will be around a year for leaving Sol vicinity, then jump, and then maneuvering around wherever you arrive at. I am fine with the requirement of building a spacebound assembly yard for getting the jumpdrive into space (or more accurately assembling it there), I am fine with setting up an infrastructure of resource gathering that fuels my normal rocket flights and research, but in any career game I will have been everywhere in the system by the end of the second decade, and will have nothing to do but wait for that blasted interstellar probe to be put together.

With a "wormhole" or an artifact gate hidden somewhere, you will do pretty much the same except your ships will have to be threading a needle, being required to hit the target with their trajectory. Unlike any of the STL proposals, the discovery of a wormhole will not disrupt gameplay - once you build a ship capable of going through it, you will find a different system to explore, and gameplay will continue, both in that system and in yours, with no time spent twiddling your thumbs waiting for that ship to get to its destination.

Agree, but if they use those examples in benefic of FTL idea, then we can use thousands of examples where similar ideas (like FTL now) was claimed and prove wrong later. So we dont go anywhere following this path.

We do go somewhere, actually. The existence of those examples proves that you cannot outright dismiss the claim as false, until proven - actually proven, not theoretically - to be so. NASA seems to actually be working on an Alcubierre drive adaptation, so whether or not it's possible is a toss-up even now.

In case of Arthur C clarke you will see that anything that he wrote in 1950, was very accurate with 2000, and so go on. Why?? because he was a scientist, and he based his novels on real science.

Funny that you should mention Clarke as a reasonable authority figure in regards to science. I am assuming you don't know about the laws he wrote, then?

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible' date=' he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.[/quote'] See anything similar to what you're maintaining? Thought so.

A discuccion only has sense if we talk about things that we know, the technology is like a ladder, we can add one step if we have the one below. But we cant talk about a step at 300 meters high if we dont have any idea how would it be the middle steps to reach there.

Tell that to the people who discovered new substances, physical principles, and fields of applied science, by sheer bloody accident.

[Outlander4]

Oh my God, it keeps on growing!

I think we should all calm down a bit. Also, I'd like to say that this discussion is futile:

1. People arguing for and against FTL have very different visions of what this game should be. Some people want a bit more realism and engineering challenge, even if at cost of less places to explore; others want lots of star systems to visit. So physics is not really a topic here; it's our vision of the game that differs.

I'd be perfectly fine with 20 or so stars around, if planetary systems are detailed - and I mean it - if Mün would be able to keep me exploring it for days or weeks, then discovering another star system would occupy me for God knows how long, with all the science (geology, climatology, physics, astronomy...some feeble attempts at astrobiology, and generally seeing exotic places) to be done and loads of locations to visit

2. We can find strong points both for FTL and for STL propulsion, and hand-wave some game mechanics to tie it in. There is no sense arguing about it; I can see the point of FTL system as well as viability of STL travel. Humanity never achieved any of it, so we don't know how it actually looks. We can imagine how it would be, but most likely it will be entirely different in so many ways...

We all can dream or get inspired by Star Trek or Clark (which is a really bad idea, I'd say, and no, ipad and iphone are NOT communicators and pads we've seen in the science fiction; just try to analyse your room's atmosphere composition with your ipad)

3. People having different visions of the game most likely have different understanding of 'fun'. Tastes differ; it's only logical; if so many people want to have and FTL it's ok, let them have it; but since it would require writing a really good procedural generation engine to make an entire new galaxy why not have it at a later stage as an expansion? I am pretty sure that even the most fervent FTL supporters won't really mind exploring some (around 20) nearby (0.8-10 ly) star systems with really fast (0.5 c or so) STL propulsion and if it takes reasonable amount of time. Time your missions, assign a tedious task of accelerating your ship to your brave little green friends (which is a planned feature), and spend some time mining asteroids, producing fuel and building another interstellar ship to reach the other star or transport many thousands of kerbals to Laythe or Duna or dump all criminals on Eve or whatever your space program is doing, and then get back to the interstellar ship, plot your trajectory, launch the probes and explore stuff.

Adding lots of procedurally generated systems will make the game huge and limitless, but won't it be logical to add aliens as well then? They should be somewhere out there, on one of the many billions of planets we are to find, right? Where is the thin line that separates KSP as we know it from a totally different game? Where are we to stop expanding our vision and say that it's enough? We should allow Squad to make another game about kerbals!

[AlamoVampire]

star trek is indeed a grand vision for what could be. there is NOTHING that says that in 300-400 years we as a species will achieve a similar society where we strive for personal enrichment, where the greed and failings of our society today are a thing of the past. not a bloody thing says something like that can not be.

and to you laj: you are pitiful, I feel so sorry for you that you are so limited in what you believe is possible. there is NOTHING, not a blasted thing that is impossible. It was impossible for a single person to fly ALONE across the ATLANTIC OCEAN, but, Charles Lindbergh proved that it was NOT impossible, but POSSIBLE, now, we fly from America to Europe DAILY. It was IMPOSSIBLE that the world was anything BUT flat, turns out, it was IMPOSSIBLE to be anything BUT round. It was IMPOSSIBLE for a television signal to be broadcast across the Atlantic, now, we can broadcast from NYC to Sydney Australia. It was IMPOSSIBLE for the noble souls of Apollo 13 to make it home, but, they made it home ALIVE. The ONLY thing that is impossible is ONLY impossible while we THINK it is. The INSTANT we decide that we want something or to do something, it becomes only a question of WHAT WILL IT TAKE? They said we could not survive in space, and now, we do so daily now dont we. You are closed minded and flawed beyond reason, there is nothing we cannot do, nothing.

[lajoswinkler]

LOL, this is what happens when people don't understand the difference between science and technology.

I won't repeat myself, it's tiresome. If you put some effort in understanding the science and the natural laws, you'll understand why not all things are possible.

[AlamoVampire]

Laj, you make me feel soo sorry for you, you really do. You seem so limited, so shackled. I will grant you 1 thing. Not all things are possible TODAY. BUT, who are YOU to say what cannot be done in 10, 20, 50, 100, 1,000 years? Are you so unimaginative to think that humanity will never find the understanding to make what YOU think impossible to become as common place as a trip to London from New York City is today? Are you so limited as to think that just because we lack the knowledge today that we will ALWAYS lack the knowledge? It is seriously people like you who fought soo hard against some of our species greatest minds because they thought what was impossible to THEM was going to remain such. Expand your mind, expand your ideas, then, see what we can do.

natural laws say man cannot fly, that we cannot exceed the speed of a rifle round, yet, we do so DAILY. Natural law said we cannot reach beyond Earth, but we have, and we continue to do so. Natural law once said we could not live longer than 30-40 years, but now, we have those who have seen 100 birthdays or MORE. Natural law says SOME must die at birth, yet we routinely save those who NATURE would demand die. Nature is NOT our stopper, it is unimaginative people such as you who try to stop us.

Edited August 29, 2013 by AlamoVampire

[Sean Mirrsen]

AlamoVampire, by sounding like an overzealous Orthodox church preacher, you are not really helping our case here. Especially not with glorifying (the already glorified) Star Trek.

When you need to push someone's opinion on physics, not clinging to pop culture is usually a better way to go about it.

I am also not happy about saving those whom nature would demand to die, and reverting changes that nature would inflict upon humans at birth, as that really causes us to stagnate as a species, but I know when not to be vocal about it, as that line of thinking is kind of unpopular. (understatement of the decade right there)

Though this discussion does bring up that interesting point in how the "big names" in science tend to be used nowadays. "Glory be to Einstein the Savior and Stephen Hawking His Prophet" seems more and more appropriate as I read more of these discussions.

Seriously, people. Science is not religion. We are not here to fervently cling to facts bestowed upon us in undying faith - true scientists challenge the facts, as that is the only way to keep the science going forward.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Sean Mirrsen

[Kegereneku]

Oh my God, it keeps on growing!

I think we should all calm down a bit. Also, I'd like to say that this discussion is futile:

1. People arguing for and against FTL have very different visions of what this game should be. Some people want a bit more realism and engineering challenge, even if at cost of less places to explore; others want lots of star systems to visit. So physics is not really a topic here; it's our vision of the game that differs.

[.....]

We all can dream or get inspired by Star Trek or Clark (which is a really bad idea, I'd say, and no, ipad and iphone are NOT communicators and pads we've seen in the science fiction; just try to analyse your room's atmosphere composition with your ipad)

I think so too.

But I got to say that proponents of FTL gameplay aren't necessarily the same as those who want dozen of other stars system or even this dangerous chimera called "procedurally generated planet" which I think would dilute proportionally the interest of any single planet/moon/dwarf fortr...planet.

Easy FTL sound outrageous, and it is, that's not what I would propose.

But limited FTL will be necessary if we want to balance the gameplay in a way which doesn't backfire in unintended consequence. Of course FTL can also backfire, but it can be modified at will, unlike other solutions.

Last : I've seen people measure cardiac pulsation using the sensor of a Ipad, and more frighteningly sense what someone is writing on a keyboard nearby using its vibration sensor. So give us a need to analyze the atmosphere (pollution ?) and we will certainly make a smartphone capable of analysing your room's atmosphere composition, it will probably come after scandalous thermal and see-through camera.

[AlamoVampire]

Sean: I think the ideals we see in Star Trek are something we should by all means strive for, because honestly, if we are to survive as a species, then, well, that sort of society we see in Star Trek is something we MUST achieve, and doing any less, or saying that glorifying it is a bad thing <at least that is the vibe I am getting, if I am wrong, redact this entire post sir, with an apology for the failed interpretation> then, we are already doomed. The technologies postulated and fantasized about in Star Trek and all its children series are very possible with some having come to pass in one form or another already. I will never back down in such a debate as this when it is important that we do not cower from such ideals, but stand up and embrace them fully.

To be fair in my saving those whom nature would demand to die statement, I refer to those who would by some misfortune of birth defect or premature birth, that would, if left to natures own devices would die, those by the dictates of natural law should die, which, unless I have gravely missed something, is what it appears that lajoswinkler would think should die, by his own argument that natural law cannot be circumvented. Given that medical technologies and treatments are what they are today, that natural law is being routinely circumvented with potent medications and long stints in Neonatal Intensive Care Units, which, by and large is a GOOD thing that this is happening. Where I personal stand beyond this on this very charged subject, will, for decency sake, remain private, as ones views on such a subject can and will lead to very ugly debates that can and will get out of hand because of how passionate we all are.

Now, with the above said, I say again, that, the ideals postulated and presented in Star Trek are nothing to be ashamed of or spoken of in hushed tones, but are something we all should try to achieve, and one day, those ideals very well may come into reality, as for those technologies, replicators, phasers, warp drive, transporters, deflector shields and so on, we lack the fundamental knowledge right now, as we sit here to make it happen, but again, if you believed lajoswinkler we will NEVER have the fundamental knowledge to make such things happen, which, is naive at best, and harmful at worst. Will we see some iteration, absolutely. How do I know? Because face it, we are an ingenious species, we WILL make it happen. Hell, we can photograph LIGHT ITSELF WHILE IT MOVES. I think we can achieve anything we set out minds to!

Behold Femto-Photography:

skip to 2:00 if you dont want to listen to him chat

http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html

[Outlander4]

I think so too.

But I got to say that proponents of FTL gameplay aren't necessarily the same as those who want dozen of other stars system or even this dangerous chimera called "procedurally generated planet" which I think would dilute proportionally the interest of any single planet/moon/dwarf fortr...planet.

Easy FTL sound outrageous, and it is, that's not what I would propose.

But limited FTL will be necessary if we want to balance the gameplay in a way which doesn't backfire in unintended consequence. Of course FTL can also backfire, but it can be modified at will, unlike other solutions.

Last : I've seen people measure cardiac pulsation using the sensor of a Ipad, and more frighteningly sense what someone is writing on a keyboard nearby using its vibration sensor. So give us a need to analyze the atmosphere (pollution ?) and we will certainly make a smartphone capable of analysing your room's atmosphere composition, it will probably come after scandalous thermal and see-through camera.

Yeah, I think that procedurally generated universe is way over-the-top. It can be done decently without any loss of detail, like it's done in Space Engine, but it's just moving away from the core part of the game.

Easy FTL and easy really fast STL are both 'game-breaking' unless you impose some strange game-play limitations on them. We'll need some really good propulsion systems to get big ships to outer planets when they are added (three more gas giants, I believe) or develop FTL that works in-system for that. Otherwise it's hours of waiting at maximum time warp...

Regarding ipad sensors and stuff - it's just pathetic when it comes to accuracy, unless you use specialised accessories. Which kind of defeats the purpose - I can get my PC and hook all kinds of interesting stuff to it (a fluorescent microscope...man! those were the times!) as well. So, Star Trek-like sensors are probably impossible. Especially when it comes to analysing DNA of unknown creatures...

[AngelLestat]

To day the "go advance" bottom it does not show the bar tools.. weird.

Sean Mirrer

KSP will probably never have multiplayer because of the logistical difficulties of managing time warp of different players, and you propose it to tackle time dilation paradoxes.

You will have Time warp, in one way or another... Second it would not be multiplayer, and even if it is, what is the matter?? It will no change your control, no matter what system you select. Because the time is local to each system. And even if you go back the time never will precede your time in kerbol.

The 70 years of traveling to the center of the galaxy will be 70 years to the crew, sure, assuming time dilation is what it is.,

Is what it is?? where are you going with that?

That was an example, but some news, you will not go to the center in the galaxy in ksp. I dont think that you or squad had time to explore or create 300000000000 stars systems.

I said I like a challenge, but one of design and skill, not timewasting and sheer manual labor.

So I dont understand you, because from one side you said that you dont wanna waste time in create an infrastructure to interstellar travel, and now you said that you dont have problem in create a infrastructure for FTL.. Is confusing.

Maybe you have the wrong idea of what I am suggesting. Like Kegereneku, even when i told him many times how it would be, he still points to the old sail idea of 40 years back with materilas and technology from that time.

Answer you: not.. i dont like WOW, and I never play that.

Plus IRL ion thrusters are much smaller and lighter than the 250Kg hunk of metal KSP has.

It does not matter, what it matter is that similar size satellites or ships gets higher delta V in reality than in KSP.

And in the early KSP versions, ion trusters was totally pointless.

But how I said, it has to be with the timewarp mode.

With a "wormhole" or an artifact gate hidden somewhere, you will do pretty much the same except your ships will have to be threading a needle

Wormholes are in the same category than alcubierre drive, even if those are "possible", we would need a techonoly level far away our imagination. And you cant have wormholes from one side and normal rockets in conjunction.

But well, you can play mass effect or many other titles if you wanna experiment with this. And I dont see the fun on it.. You just cross it. Where is the adventure, the travel ? And you can have one of those in each planet.

We do go somewhere, actually. The existence of those examples proves that you cannot outright dismiss the claim as false, until proven - actually proven, not theoretically .

But is not my duty to prove that something is not possible, it is yours convince me with evidence to support it is.

Following your example, I could say that I can go to other star in a carriage pulled by unicorns. Now you try to prove that this is impossible. You cant. This mean that is possible? Is not the same.

to be so. NASA seems to actually be working on an Alcubierre drive adaptation, so whether or not it's possible is a toss-up even now

I already said to alamo, to find that source.. Now I ask you to find it too, then post the link with the quote where it said the things that you are claiming.

Funny that you should mention Clarke as a reasonable authority figure in regards to science. I am assuming you don't know about the laws he wrote, then?

when I said something that contradicts arthur c clarke? really? Is not the same accept that we dont know how the future would be, than "claim" that something it would be like we thoght. Arthur said that, we cant claim nothing about the distant future. This is for me, and for you.

We can have good approaches if we know physsics like Arthur did so many times do, proyecting knowledge into a 50 years future.

Tell that to the people who discovered new substances, physical principles, and fields of applied science, by sheer bloody accident.

Why I need to tell them, they knew that, is the way that they did those discovers. Step by step.

You think Einstein could discover its relativity theory without Maxwell equations or the other millons of pre discovers needed to accomplish that?

We are not so intelligent like we thoght, we discover things by error or follow little steps from the cavern man to now. Without culture, we are not much more intelligent than a wolf. Like the example of people who was raiced by animals.

outlander4

I'd be perfectly fine with 20 or so stars around, if planetary systems are detailed

I guess you are asking too much xd

In some time maybe he add another star system, and in the future with multiplas updates, maybe we will have 4.

Now try to put in perspective how you will like to explore those 4, with instant travel or ftl? or with different ways than any other game.

And take into account that less star systems, means more details or things to explore in them.

If they are just spheres in the space, what is the point?

Edited August 29, 2013 by AngelLestat

[lajoswinkler]

Laj, you make me feel soo sorry for you, you really do. You seem so limited, so shackled. I will grant you 1 thing. Not all things are possible TODAY. BUT, who are YOU to say what cannot be done in 10, 20, 50, 100, 1,000 years? Are you so unimaginative to think that humanity will never find the understanding to make what YOU think impossible to become as common place as a trip to London from New York City is today? Are you so limited as to think that just because we lack the knowledge today that we will ALWAYS lack the knowledge? It is seriously people like you who fought soo hard against some of our species greatest minds because they thought what was impossible to THEM was going to remain such. Expand your mind, expand your ideas, then, see what we can do.

natural laws say man cannot fly, that we cannot exceed the speed of a rifle round, yet, we do so DAILY. Natural law said we cannot reach beyond Earth, but we have, and we continue to do so. Natural law once said we could not live longer than 30-40 years, but now, we have those who have seen 100 birthdays or MORE. Natural law says SOME must die at birth, yet we routinely save those who NATURE would demand die. Nature is NOT our stopper, it is unimaginative people such as you who try to stop us.

Again, you don't understand the difference between science and technology. I'm opened to new knowledge more than you think, but I also acknowledge there are some basic facts out there.

Honestly, how much do you know about science? Because it doesn't seem like much. Your way of thinking reminds me so much of the majority of the engineering world, which is plagued by it.

You clearly don't understand what natural laws are. They have no connection to flying or getting old.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You will have Time warp, in one way or another... Second it would not be multiplayer, and even if it is, what is the matter?? It will no change your control, no matter what system you select. Because the time is local to each system. And even if you go back the time never will precede your time in kerbol.

Time is global in KSP, unless you haven't noticed. Even if you had your STL travel system and put a ship at 0.99c on a trajectory to a star 10 light years away, you would still have to spend ~10 years of flight-time before the ship reaches the destination. Because if you won't, then the game will have to track time differently in different reference frames.

Is what it is?? where are you going with that?

That was an example, but some news, you will not go to the center in the galaxy in ksp. I dont think that you or squad had time to explore or create 300000000000 stars systems.

Modding. With planets and systems being loaded into RAM separately, resource-wise, the potential maximum limit of stellar bodies you can have at once is obnoxiously huge. Toss a procedural generation system into that, and you can have a whole galaxy.

If you think it's impossible with our technology, go ahead and try to play Frontier: First Encounters. It was a game that ran in DOS, a sequel to Elite. It had planets moving on their orbits, and full newtonian physics for ships, with time acceleration and jumpdrives to facilitate travel... with a list of planets and systems somewhere in the hundreds. A game for DOS.

If you're telling me KSP can't do at least the same, you're delusional.

So I dont understand you, because from one side you said that you dont wanna waste time in create an infrastructure to interstellar travel, and now you said that you dont have problem in create a infrastructure for FTL.. Is confusing.

Maybe you have the wrong idea of what I am suggesting. Like Kegereneku, even when i told him many times how it would be, he still points to the old sail idea of 40 years back with materilas and technology from that time.

Answer you: not.. i dont like WOW, and I never play that.

Simple: I like natural progression of challenges. I play an RPG, I like it when I don't have to do any more grinding around than is inevitable in all the walking/driving/flying place-to-place misadventures that take place during the story. So if I need an orbital shipyard to build myself a JumpShip, I will do so - because holy superstrings, it's a freaking orbital shipyard. I'm going to be using it for much more than just the JumpShip. Same with the infrastructure. It'll be fun to set it up and do periodical missions to the various bases sprinkled around the system, but unless it's for an immediate purpose it's not going to be fun at all. The project you're talking about, most of them really, are monstrous in size and scope. The amount of delta-V needed for a conventional rocket to reach significant velocities for time warp to even help anything is retardedly high, and the resulting rocketship will be so large and complex that you'll not only need considerable time and resources to set it up - but also a very powerful computer to actually allow it to show up on the screen. It's pretty much the same with that solar-panel parasol design - it won't be constructed in one piece, it will have to be modular, and about the size of Gilly at least - and the game's physics range is 2.5 Km. So in the end you have a slow, painful grind, bringing parts of the blasted thing together by hand, and enduring gradually slower game performance as you do so.

With the alternative being ignoring an age-old physics postulate or making small allowances to make currently theorised technology viable, I think the logical choice is apparent. "A big crime against physics is preferable to a small crime against gameplay".

It does not matter, what it matter is that similar size satellites or ships gets higher delta V in reality than in KSP.

And in the early KSP versions, ion trusters was totally pointless.

But how I said, it has to be with the timewarp mode.

Similar-size satellites IRL don't weigh as much. The Deep Space 1 ion-power probe massed in at 373Kg, 486 with fuel, total. The KSP in-game Ion Engine weighs 250Kg alone. Delta-V is inversely proportional to the mass of the craft.

Also, small surprise there. The KSP 'verse is 10 times space compressed. You need more delta-V to make orbit from Earth than you need for a full mission to Duna. If KSP had Delta-V budgets appropriate to the physical parameters of the tanks, we'd be swimming in delta-V.

Wormholes are in the same category than alcubierre drive, even if those are "possible", we would need a techonoly level far away our imagination. And you cant have wormholes from one side and normal rockets in conjunction.

But well, you can play mass effect or many other titles if you wanna experiment with this. And I dont see the fun on it.. You just cross it. Where is the adventure, the travel ? And you can have one of those in each planet.

When the "adventure" is staring into the void for ten years (and maybe not even that, assuming "magical" hibernation ), I'll take the wormhole. It might at least have something fun to see on the threshold. And wormholes are thought to be naturally occurring in certain circumstances, btw.

But is not my duty to prove that something is not possible, it is yours convince me with evidence to support it is.

Following your example, I could say that I can go to other star in a carriage pulled by unicorns. Now you try to prove that this is impossible. You cant. This mean that is possible? Is not the same.

It is impossible insofar as unicorns capable of flight have not been recorded to exist. And do keep in mind you're talking to an MLP proponent here. A carriage pulled by unicorns would be the way to travel the void if I had the option. Assuming they don't mind, of course.

I already said to alamo, to find that source.. Now I ask you to find it too, then post the link with the quote where it said the things that you are claiming.

Not quite in the mood for actual research on the subject, but there is that document I linked above that got tossed at me in a similar discussion on another forum. That work?

when I said something that contradicts arthur c clarke? really? Is not the same accept that we dont know how the future would be, than "claim" that something it would be like we thoght. Arthur said that, we cant claim nothing about the distant future. This is for me, and for you.

We can have good approaches if we know physsics like Arthur did so many times do, proyecting knowledge into a 50 years future.

Well, maybe not you specifically. Personally I tend to forget what even goes on in these arguments. ("live in the now", so to say) But some of you people saying that FTL travel is imposible, Star Trek technology is never going to happen, yada yada. Remember that, at the root of it all, it's the oldest and most respectable scientists telling us that.

Why I need to tell them, they knew that, is the way that they did those discovers. Step by step.

You think Einstein could discover its relativity theory without Maxwell equations or the other millons of pre discovers needed to accomplish that?

We are not so intelligent like we thoght, we discover things by error or follow little steps from the cavern man to now. Without culture, we are not much more intelligent than a wolf. Like the example of people who was raiced by animals.

We as a species are pretty dumb, yeah. Religion alone is taking a massive toll there - not any specific one, just in general. Or I should say "has taken a toll" - the damage's been done long ago. Anyway.

Yeah, pretty much that's how discoveries are normally made. Scientific method and building on the works of others, that's the advantage we have over animals - we keep notes, and share them.

I should also point out that a whole damn lot of the things we've ever discovered, were discovered by observing the things happening in nature. We were a tad too late to observe the natural fission reactors though, sadly, and I guess the scientific community as a whole isn't going to wake up until a freak naturally-occurring FTL asteroid blows up the Moon. Or "a" moon, or Mars for instance. Safer that way.

I guess you are asking too much xd

In some time maybe he add another star system, and in the future with multiplas updates, maybe we will have 4.

Now try to put in perspective how you will like to explore those 4, with instant travel or ftl? or with different ways than any other game.

I would prefer a way that doesn't involve needless waiting around. I would prefer to jump in, leave the jumpship on the fringes of the system where it can still work, and explore the planets of the systems the old-fashioned way.

And take into account that less star systems, means more details or things to explore in them.

If they are just spheres in the space, what is the point?

Manually created starsystems have a major drawback. They are few. Depressingly, vanishingly few. We, right now, only have the one. And adding every new body to it is taking hundreds of man-hours of work from the dev team. Procedural content is the future of gaming. It allows to build a framework upon which handcrafted elements - or procedural elements generated from handcrafted elements - may be placed, thus ensuring both infinite variety and replayability, and the close-up quality of detail.

There's a reason fewer and fewer strategy games nowadays come without a random map generator. Unless you're going for cybersports and want your players to optimize the time between actions to a millisecond, turning strategy gaming into a patterned clickfest, having just a handful of premade maps to play in is going to be severely detrimental to the game's longevity.

And the point - the point is that it is procedural, and in all likelihood at least a little random. You know what is the difference between a beautiful handcrafted world, and a beautiful random procedurally generated world?

Even the creator can enjoy the sights of the latter.

They're not just spheres in space. They're no more "just spheres in space" than all the planets and moons in KSP are "just spheres in space". They are all unique in their own ways. If I had a version of Noctis that had a KSP-like rocket constructor and physics instead of the instant-anywhere landing transporter, I would play the hell out of that.

[Kegereneku]

Maybe you have the wrong idea of what I am suggesting. Like Kegereneku, even when i told him many times how it would be, he still points to the old sail idea of 40 years back with materilas and technology from that time.

Answer you: not.. i dont like WOW, and I never play that.

Nobody got the wrong ideas except YOU, and I'm not sure you realize how hard it would be to adapt it in KSP anyway.

Next : What the hell did to tried to say with that comparison of the age of sail you attribute to me ? The engineering level needed to build the beam-sail system you pretend to be "practical" require 99.9999% efficient EVERYTHING using fabrication process post-singularity(if you now what it mean). It's like saying "ok we have carbon-nanotube, so why can't we build a space-elevator with maglev-train in the next 40 years and an orbital ring 10 years later ?"

To do the same comparison than you, you are from the Apollo Era, talking about a self-sufficient colony on Mars within 50 years.

That's was about REALITY, now we have to talk about VIDEO GAME.

We told you several times that even if KSP generously overpowered the laser, made the vessel immune to heat and reduced by 1-2 orders of magnitude the distance between different stars, you would still require several year of SLOW and CONTINUOUS acceleration that CANNOT be calculated real-time (and is quite a waste of time).

Supposing KSP could deal with it in a very simplified way (one center of thrust for example), the only way to keep this miracle-technology from replacing any other sort of technology is to make travel longer than 10 years

What I'm trying to make you understand is that your goals are mutually exclusive.

Let's try another approach and show you the MATH of a Beam-Sail for KSP :

Imagine another star 94607304725 km away from Kerbol (that's 1 Light-year divided by 10e-2)

We will take Kerbol-Jool as a comparison : 68 773 560 km

Maximum speed : 0.5 C

Sail-size and Laser-power are considered adequate and there's no power-loss from the laser with distance.

(Flyby trip) Getting there at 0.5 C take 1,8 years, let's take 10 years of acceleration to reach 0.5 C

150 000 000 m/s -> divided by 10*365 days, then 24h, down to second.

It give us a reasonable acceleration of 0.04 m/s² for a ~11 years travel.

For comparison the stock-Ion-probe (0.68 Tons) : accelerate at 0.08 m/s². (a full Xenon tank is 1/6 of its mass)

Now if you want to propel something BIGGER than this probes, the energy requirement will obey the cube law. The Unforeseen consequence is that to propel 10 tons at 0.04m/s² you gain the ability to propel 1 tons at 10e3 * 0.04 m/s = 40m/s² ...no need to say it allow to send probes anywhere in the Kerbol system.

(Transfer trip) Getting there at 0.5 C take 1,8 years, let's take 5 years to accelerate to 0.5 C then 5 years to brake

150 000 000 m/s -> divided by 5*365 days, then 24h, down to second.

It give us a strong acceleration of 0.9 m/s² for a ~11 years travel. Following the cube-law, if you want to transfer a 10 tons ship will give you the ability to propel 1 tons at 900m/s².

I'll let you crunch the numbers for the power requirement and the sail size. You'll tell us how much satellite you need to propel 1 ton and 10 tons.

If you reduce the mass of the spaceship, you allow conventional drive to reach relativistic speed.

If you reduce the acceleration, you'll increase travel time to 50 or 150 years.

If you augment or reduce the distance of the target, you won't make much difference.

If you give more mass to the sail and its support-structure, you'll increase the energy requirement.

If you augment the number of satellites needed you reach obscene numbers of launch for later mission.

If you require research to increase the sail/lasers efficiency, you'll need magic (sufficiently evolved technology).

I see no gameplay mechanism which would allow us to balance a STL beam-sail infrastructure. Except pretending it doesn't work for interplanetary travel.

On the other hand I can give you a dozen of FTL gameplay that are moderately challenging and don't break the common game mechanic.

And the point - the point is that it is procedural, and in all likelihood at least a little random. You know what is the difference between a beautiful handcrafted world, and a beautiful random procedurally generated world?

The Big problem with procedurally generated content, is that it does NOT increase linearly the interest of the game and you can randomly end up with 10 boring solar system.

Procedural Generation is good to fill some void or generate unimportant relief, but you still need some human-creativity to make those void/relief interesting.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Kegereneku

[AlamoVampire]

Laj you poor poor soul. there is 0 difference between science and technology, the one cannot exist with out the other. you seem incapable of believing that we as a species cannot progress beyond what we have now, and that is so fundamentally flawed it is hilarious. The natural laws as we understand them today, the physics we understand today is evolving beyond what understand today. What it will be tomorrow is different than what it is today. What we can accomplish in 1 year or 10 years or 100 or a thousand years will NOT be chained by what we know today. THAT is what YOU need to accept. You must accept that things will change, our knowledge will expand and we will find NEW natural laws that permit such things to exist. This is the last I will acknowledge you, as discourse between you and I can not serve any purpose because you fail to grasp at what we as species will one day be able to do. Safe voyages in this wondrous game, and may you one day see what I see and have the faith that I have in humanity that we will one day see technology that we can only dream of today.

[MRab2]

Laj you poor poor soul. there is 0 difference between science and technology, the one cannot exist with out the other.

They are very different things and technology predates science by several tens of thousands of years.

[Sean Mirrsen]

They are very different things and technology predates science by several tens of thousands of years.

Semantically different maybe, inasmuch as "modern science" and "modern technology" are defined. Technology is any systematic use of an... anything, with a certain expected result. Science is determining said systematic use through observation. The first caveman who picked up a club may have done so out of idle curiosity, but the purpose and practical uses of the club were determined through experimentation - the earliest and most basic form of science. The first banging together of the first two rocks was a result of natural hands being found insufficiently hard and durable for the purpose of delivering kinetic energy. Science and technology always went hand-in-hand, with new technologies being made as either developing old ones through deliberate improvement or random experimentation, or through observing nature and attempting to recreate its features.

[Person012345]

Yeah, science has actually been around long before technology because animals use science in a very basic manner.

[Outlander4]

Does anyone actually knows anything about science? Like, are there any actual scientists around?

Science = technology - this is just ridiculous. Really. History is a science; is there any historical technology?

Science is a system of methods and rules used to gather new information in an orderly fasion. Technology is how you make stuff. Science is about making abstract rules and/or explanations of cause and effect from the set of experimental and observational data. Technology in its high for does the opposite - it takes abstract knowledge, and implements some parts of it with specific aim in mind.

You can't say that cavemen observing how a wooden club brakes stuff were doing science. Observing the impact of the wooden club on certain types of surfaces and measuring the effect and comparing it to something used as a frame of reference in order to cunstruct a reliable model of the club's behaviour is science (almost). I mean, you can make wheels without understanding a damn about friction.

Animals using science? Oh yeah, it gets even stranger. They don't.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You seem to be introducing arbitrary complexity cutoffs. Science isn't about making up rules - the rules are just a side effect. Science begins as experimentation and observation, and it deals in knowledge, first and foremost. The rules are our way of sharing that knowledge with each other. The cavemen didn't know exact numbers for tensile strength of mesopotamian oak, they had no units to measure the magnitude of kinetic force, nor did they have a published thesis on lever arms and transmission of force around a fulcrum. But they did, through experimentation and observation, determine that "bigger stick hit harder". Technology isn't "how you make stuff". Technology is a practical application of knowledge. Find a practical application for historical knowledge, and you can have historical technology. Cavemen, once they acquired and could communicate the knowledge of "bigger stick hit harder", created the first technology - the art of beating something with a stick. You can't really say that technology is way beyond such primitivism. What is a hammer, if not just a bigger and harder stick? Smithing is technology, right?

Science and technology are two parts of the same loop. Science takes from the surroundings and processes knowledge. Technology processes knowledge and gives back to the surroundings. By enriching our surroundings with technology, we change the capabilities of our science, and by studying the surroundings with our science we improve the capabilities of our technology. It's a circle of humankind's development.

[Outlander4]

No, it's not working that way. Observation and experiment are just the means, they do not make the whole body of science. Anyone with mind keen enough can observe and come to conclusions; it is not science, it's something like 'common knowledge'.

If you do not have some rules, it becomes just a research. You can measure hitting force of the stick however you want, but unless you're doing it within the scientific method and using agreed-upon measures and rules it will be just your personal research using rules set by yourself; it may be fairly scientific in nature but other people would not be able to use your results in a consistent manner. There is whole brunch of philosophy dealing with such problems, really; science is a system of agreed-upon terms for orderly gathering, reusability, preservation and consistency of knowledge, without it it degrades into chaos (as if it's not troubled enough due to humans being subjective and selfish...).

Cavemen, men in general and (I think; many disagree) even some animals (elephants) have/had the ability to analysis and synthesis. It's two functions of the brain - first deals with breaking down the problem into a set of smaller problems you can actually solve; second deals with extracting general principles from a set of different problems. It's a common way of thinking both in everyday life and science; it helped us to understand that stick hits hard; that different sticks hit differently, and that the force of the hit depends on the size of the stick. It does not require science; it does not require even language, I believe.

To summarise: not all gathering of knowledge can be called science.

But you know, it's just a technical thing; you words about people obtaining knowledge and applying it in practice from the very begining of our existence are essentially true, because it's how our brains work. If by science you meant gathering knowledge in general, than you were absolutely correct in your statement.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Outlander4

[Roderik]

It has to be fixed cuzz i can warp trough kerbin XD

[goldfang35]

The probablem with FTL travel(I hate the idea of warp drives) is we don't know how todo it yet we got a theory but how to make it happen is out of the question. Second problem is that its not in the spirit of KSP warp drives are way too easy to use ksp ussualy makes you cry when you fail something forget to save and have todo it again. However thats what makes it enjoyable a simple burn with a warp drive to a star seems way too easy for my liking. Never liked the idea of timewarp but i dont think they should make it too much longer if going into interstellar travel part of the challenge is to wait and also to make ways to get there quickly and to keep our kerbals alive(when some kind of life support system gets added into the game.) Maybe you could make a orion style rocket by docking parts and somehow exploding to create thrust

[peadar1987]

If we assume the Kerbals are advanced enough to build a functioning FTL "warp drive", we'd be playing a game called "Kerbal Space Elevator". Not nearly so much fun!

[Kegereneku]

I shall remind people that in a simulated and fictional universe like in the Kerbal Space Program game, you can make up rules to make FTL as fun as wanted.

KSP already work on magic right now. Planet's mass are unrealistic, thrust doesn't vary with pressure, engines are nerfed, reaction-wheel never lock or need thrust-reboot, life-support is infinite, 90% of all parts resist reentry heat, high pressure doesn't matter

Not that I'm advocating for FTL drive, I would be disappointed if it came before :

- more realistic atmosphere

- more developed resources-system and In-Situ-Resources-Utilization

- And a balanced Fusion thruster.

But as the game goes toward being "completed", I wouldn't mind even an anti-gravity engine, FTL drive, reactionless-drive as a END GAME last to be ever done achievement if it's what it take to make KSP fun for a little longer.

This shouldn't be a question of realism but of game design, although pride probably take a part some people take pride in doing things the hard way. But then, the solution is to make FTL just as hard.