New technologies you think should be added to the game

[RAJ JAR]

Same width as texas? it will be 38 meters by 38 meters. Where the hell did you hear that?

if you read through the whole thread, you will see I corrected myself, yes the Sunjammer will not be the size of Texas but in the article http://www.space.com/21556-sunjammer-solar-sail-launch-2014.html it says a solor sail the size of Texas will be needed if we want to travel to another system.

[RAJ JAR]

Be careful, FTL and Space elevator should be considered out of topic here as both are basically impossible, while VASIMR exist, fission/fusion-thruster, SABRE are in the realm of feasibility.

There's another big problem with Space Elevator in KSP : It would need to be a "scenery" sort of object as it's too big for the physic engine.

The Dragon capsule is totally ok, but I don't know if the Devs are ok with self-propelled capsule (It would reduce part count though)

I would also like some new solar pannel if there's a VASIMR equivalent, a truly gigantic square solar-array which track the sun.

This is basically what I have in mind :

My wish list for christmas :

* <1m high thrust engine (for early game and micro-satellite)

* <1m long rocket-fuel tank

* shock absorber / vibration dampener

* omnidirectional wheels

* stackable drogue-chute / parachute

* a VASIMR equivalent

* an even bigger solar array

* SABRE equivalent engine

* Electric air-propeller

* Airship

* "RINGS", http://www.gizmag.com/rings-satellite-iss/28712/

To add to your list I think AD Astra should add their vasimr powered deep space ship in the game. And I think they should make the game into an mmorpg game. That will be soo cool seeing other astronauts floating around.

[Kegereneku]

Turn KSP into a MMORPG ? are you serious ?

If so, please read the "What not to suggest thread" here : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36863-What-not-to-suggest

Then refrain from posting anywhere on this particular forum until you understand why it was a very very bad suggestion.

I hope some moderator lock this thread and I forget I ever replied to it.

Really, just the MMO word give me chills, after going F2P, going MMO would be the surest way to make a game bland, repetitive and shallow. It's worse than multiplayer, supposing it even looked remotely possible in the first place.

[AngelLestat]

Same apply to any material-science necessary for either the sail or the lasers sat, you can't defend a femto-thick sail resisting to 4000K for 10years and pretend a fusion-boosted-VASIMR-thruster won't gain equivalent 99.99% efficient technology (actually you can, but you'll sound stupid).

Yes I can, and with evidence. Properties of CNT or Graphene are very good detailed, is the science branch with more funding on the world right now. You know how much time it took to plastic or silicon extend over the world? Well is stimated than graphene revolution will happen even faster, Why? Becouse graphene compare with any other material is like superman vs ordinary man; and is carbon, so is cheap. Even right now graphene cost is even less than silver or platinum.

About the heat, Carbon by itself and all their by-product had the highest sublimation point of all elements and remains solid at higher temperatures than the highest melting point metals such as tungsten or rhenium. Is documented than graphene sublimation point at vacuum is about 6000K.

So I dont feel stupid at all... you should google some thing a little more before make some asumptions.

One more thing, even if you limit your max working temperature to 3000K, with a very very BAD reflection (lets said 90%) then you can have a sail that can stand without problem more than 50 Megawatt by m2.

This is enought to survive over a few km over the Sun surfice.

But if you have a sail with melting point at 600K like the sunhammer (that are only for testing purpose) then your limit energy density is thousands of times less. This is becouse the Stefan-Boltzmann Law about radiation.

But what's the point of trying to impede development because it don't suit your own project ? We need space infrastructure and space-dock before we can colonize Mars, and Vasimr is excellent for orbit keeping and more. I'm just saying I wouldn't trust Zubrin just because he got a diploma and media support.

But he does not care if Vasimr gets funding or not! You are missing the whole point of his critic. The goverment is using vasimr like an excuse to not go to mars and he is against that. Obama said than they can not go to mars until vasimr technologie is develope, and he prove with tons of evidence that is a total lie. And Diaz is saying the same lies.

Actually I love the idea and I told you so, I'm all about infrastructure and building a Pusher/braker solars arrays would be my things.

Well you will be happy then, all these without brake the gameplay.

But you have to accept one thing, if we learn something about KSP is that the rocket equation is a bitch when we are talking about higher speeds.

And the only way to skip that equation is with beamed propulsion. (Well we can have antimatter, but that will nulify all common rockets.)

Be careful, FTL and Space elevator should be considered out of topic here as both are basically impossible, while VASIMR exist, fission/fusion-thruster, SABRE are in the realm of feasibility.

There's another big problem with Space Elevator in KSP : It would need to be a "scenery" sort of object as it's too big for the physic engine.

I am agree that the space elevator it will no adds gameplay and it will have problem (maybe) with the engine.

But... Space elevator is basically imposible?? ehh? Even a japanese company made the announcement in 2012 to build an space elevator by the 2040.

Why? becouse the technology that makes that possible is already here.

I personally I dont think that is cost effective make a space elevator, this taking into account the skylon using the same light materials to make the space elevator, it will reduce the cost launch to almost the same amount.

But is totally possible, there are even plans of how face each step of its construction and how solve all their difficulties.

So put the FTL and space elevator in the same sentence it does not have many sense to me.. We are no talking about exotic matter or black hole densities or break like 5 or 6 physics rules.

My wish list for christmas:

Agree. But if i will had only 3 wishes it will be:

-Better aerodinamycs and meteorology.

-Airships

-Extra time warp mode than ignores structure physics under low accelerations.

Edited September 15, 2013 by AngelLestat

[RAJ JAR]

What about Elon Musk's new project, The HyperLoop?

[Moon Goddess]

How about other technologies other than propulsion?

To me it seems we've got plenty of propulsion in the game already we can already get anywhere, but little to do when we get there.

I'd like to see radiation and detectors, magnetic fields and detectors, life support, etc etc. Enough propulsion though.

[Idobox]

You have to beware of fashionable science, it often fails to deliver. A few years to decades ago, people were crazy about fullerenes, high temperature supractonductors, metamaterials, wireless transmission of power, etc... All this stuff works, but has only niche applications because it also has a lot of downsides.

Carbon nanotubes and graphene are exciting, but the largest sheet of graphene is only 220 atoms large, and nobody knows how to build a larger one without letting it curl. Nanotubes are a bit closer to usability, the longest ones being 18cm or so.

Making a sail out of graphene, or boron nitride, will be difficult. You will need to produce large sheets of the stuff and attach them to a structure that will have to survive the same treatment. Is there an easy way to glue or fuse graphene to carbon fibers or nanotubes?

Still even with km long carbon nanotube, building a space elevator would be very difficult, since you would still need absurd amounts of the stuff, and you would need to be able to replace damaged cable. Other forms of space tethers like rotovators are much more feasible, even with kevlar or other high strength fibers, and would be great.

All that to say these technologies are largely hypothetical. We know we could build NERVA or orion type propulsion, but despite what labs looking for funding claim, we only hope graphene will change the world.

Personnally, I would love to see tether propulsion and momentum exchange tethers, which are being tested right now, and could change real life space programs, and add interresting gameplay. The main issue is that they are long, and the physics engine doesn't like that.

Mass drivers on bodies with no atmosphere would be a nice addition too. Especially combined with momentum exchange tethers. There is an actual proposal to shoot Moon rocks or dust bags to tethers in Earth Orbit to 'charge' them so that they can accelerate payloads from LEO, or even suborbital ones to higher orbits.

[RAJ JAR]

You have to beware of fashionable science, it often fails to deliver. A few years to decades ago, people were crazy about fullerenes, high temperature supractonductors, metamaterials, wireless transmission of power, etc... All this stuff works, but has only niche applications because it also has a lot of downsides.

Carbon nanotubes and graphene are exciting, but the largest sheet of graphene is only 220 atoms large, and nobody knows how to build a larger one without letting it curl. Nanotubes are a bit closer to usability, the longest ones being 18cm or so.

Making a sail out of graphene, or boron nitride, will be difficult. You will need to produce large sheets of the stuff and attach them to a structure that will have to survive the same treatment. Is there an easy way to glue or fuse graphene to carbon fibers or nanotubes?

Still even with km long carbon nanotube, building a space elevator would be very difficult, since you would still need absurd amounts of the stuff, and you would need to be able to replace damaged cable. Other forms of space tethers like rotovators are much more feasible, even with kevlar or other high strength fibers, and would be great.

All that to say these technologies are largely hypothetical. We know we could build NERVA or orion type propulsion, but despite what labs looking for funding claim, we only hope graphene will change the world.

Personnally, I would love to see tether propulsion and momentum exchange tethers, which are being tested right now, and could change real life space programs, and add interresting gameplay. The main issue is that they are long, and the physics engine doesn't like that.

Mass drivers on bodies with no atmosphere would be a nice addition too. Especially combined with momentum exchange tethers. There is an actual proposal to shoot Moon rocks or dust bags to tethers in Earth Orbit to 'charge' them so that they can accelerate payloads from LEO, or even suborbital ones to higher orbits.

Well from what I have read about VASIMR it can produce an electromagnetic field which can block out radiations while travelling in deep space apparently. And this which also appeals to VASIMR http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_14_2013_p31-535211.xml . What about the Inflatable capsules being made by Bigelow Aerospace, I think they should add them to the game.

[AngelLestat]

Hey Idobox, you need to change your news source, it has 10 years of delay.

First, To day there are companies that sale PERFECT samples of 10mm x 10mm to be used in studies, I also read even bigger perfect sheets made.

But now (i mean some years back) there is a new method to produce graphene called Chemical Vapor Deposition CMD.

With this method (is a lot cheaper) they already made sheets bigger than 1 square meter. In fact there is not limit to how big it can be. Is not a perfect single layer. But they found than graphene it does not need to be perfect to keep they amazing properties, even with flaws these sheets keeps the 80% of their qualities.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/graphene-strength-cvd-0306201/

http://web.ornl.gov/adm/partnerships/events/Dec_Spark/Speight_Graphene%20v5.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130306-bend-and-flex-for-mobile-phones

University in South Korea showed it was possible to create roll of metres of the material, and demonstrated it on touch-sensitive tablet screens. And since then Sony has built a machine that can create rolls of the material 100m long

About carbon nanotubes you can made sheets like the one that I post 2 pages back that are real big, of course is not a perfect carbon nanotube, but their properties are close.

But if you want a perfect long carbon nanotube then it is half meter. And they had a 99,5 % of chance to produce them.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/265310-worlds-longest-carbon-nanotube-276-times-steel-s-tensile-strength.html

Also they already know techniques to joint these samples in perfect way.

So is time to everyone open they eyes, CNT and Graphene are already here. We know many products that use CNT, but also there is many products on sale that use graphene. Like tennis racket, filters, sensors, etc.

In 5 years into the future we will see many graphene products, like touch screens,CCD for cameras, earphones, supercapacitors, etc.

In 10 years from now would will start to see some airplanes or cars made of composites materials using graphene and tons of other products.

Right now they increment by 5 or 10 times the tensile strenght of metals using only a 0,00004% of graphene with the CVD method.

http://www.tsunster.com/graphene-makes-copper-500-times-stronger/

RAJ JAR

What about Elon Musk's new project, The HyperLoop?

I dont see many future in that aplication, I read 3 years back about a similar idea with more benefics in my opinion.

http://www.gizmag.com/et3-vacuum-maglev-train/21833/

How is vacuum it can reach velocities about 6500km/h and it is very efficient from the energy point of view.

But all these methods needs a huge investment, I mean, you need to start build all the circuit from zero. And is not cheap.

Why made that if we can had ways to fly (without a particular destination) using electric airplanes with superconductor motors that will be very light and efficient in the same time scale than the first 200 km of hiperloop circuit would be made.

Moon Goddess

How about other technologies other than propulsion?

To me it seems we've got plenty of propulsion in the game already we can already get anywhere, but little to do when we get there.

I'd like to see radiation and detectors, magnetic fields and detectors, life support, etc etc. Enough propulsion though.

Agree, but there is nothing bad to talk about far future addons.

Edited September 16, 2013 by AngelLestat

[Kegereneku]

Yes I can, and with evidence. Properties of CNT or Graphene are very good detailed, is the science branch with more funding on the world right now. You know how much time it took to plastic or silicon extend over the world? Well is stimated than graphene revolution will happen even faster, Why? Becouse graphene compare with any other material is like superman vs ordinary man; and is carbon, so is cheap. Even right now graphene cost is even less than silver or platinum.

You. Missed. The. Point. Again.

I don't care how much you pretend to know about material science, we are not here to prove we are engineers (plus you would need several diploma), we are discussing game mechanic and we've shown you math telling your idea can't be balanced without an absurd amount of simplification ranking up to "Let's there be light" Deus Ex Machina.

Technology only matter in that if you want more than 1 tons probes sailing 10 years, you would need technology which allow antimatter thrusters.

But he does not care if Vasimr gets funding or not! You are missing the whole point of his critic. The goverment is using vasimr like an excuse to not go to mars and he is against that. Obama said than they can not go to mars until vasimr technologie is develope, and he prove with tons of evidence that is a total lie. And Diaz is saying the same lies.

Oh but he does, I don't want to get into politic but if Zubrin actually directed a National space program he would be making up his own excuses to justify redirecting funds to his project. The guy WANT to play pioneers on Mars and wont stop until he can, even if we end up wasting money to fix "unexpected difficulty" caused by immature technology (again).

I don't care what any president say about the feasibility of going on the surface of Mars. We have robot for exploration and colonization ask for more than we can reasonably do now (public support for starter).

[/politic]

Well you will be happy then, all these without brake the gameplay.

But you have to accept one thing, if we learn something about KSP is that the rocket equation is a bitch when we are talking about higher speeds.

And the only way to skip that equation is with beamed propulsion. (Well we can have antimatter, but that will nulify all common rockets.)

Are you frigging STUPID ? How old are you really ? I'm 25 years, English isn't my native language but I know you can't misinterpret what I said that much.

Do you think I need to "accept" The Cold Equation ? I proved I understand it better than you !

Wait ! Finally it's just you being arrogant and full of yourself. Am I supposed to feel reassured just because you say I should ? You answer nothing.

By the way, you can't solve the problem by ignoring physic calculation during warp, you need it, the best you can do is a simplified single point and it still won't solve much.

But... Space elevator is basically imposible?? ehh? Even a japanese company made the announcement in 2012 to build an space elevator by the 2040.

Why? becouse the technology that makes that possible is already here.

I mean impossible as something unfeasible. I know the idea is hard to grasp but not everything engineers claim to be possible is in fact feasible (or practical). They would just love (to be payed) to try. Tricking investor into funding the "Next best thing" is how many company make money.

We are unlikely to build 35 000km of 100% perfect carbon nanotube (just to support its own weight, we need better for more), then we are unlikely to build anything close to the "speedy highway to space" we dream of (you imagine the weight of a 35000km long maglev ?), and finally unlikely to protect it from space debris (the probability of an impact is in short 100%).

And, yes, you would need launch-service cheaper than a space elevator to build one... and there's more.

People love the idea of an elevator to space and fiction often sell it as something 200km high (bad SF usually place it around LEO) but there's dynamic structure like Launch-loop, rotovator or even a god-damned orbital-ring which do look more feasible (and crazier).

Well from what I have read about VASIMR it can produce an electromagnetic field which can block out radiations while travelling in deep space apparently. And this which also appeals to VASIMR http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p31-535211.xml . What about the Inflatable capsules being made by Bigelow Aerospace, I think they should add them to the game.

Since Biglow's inflatable capsules actually work it's one of the thing the Devs are expected to add anyway.

On the other hand there's several problem with magnetic field, it only deflect charged particle, magnetic field can be bad for human health, and you would probably need a nuclear-reactor to produce the field you want. I doubt it would make an interesting mechanic for KSP.

http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html

Edited September 16, 2013 by Kegereneku

[RAJ JAR]

In the link you provided, its was written in 1991, that is 20 years ago, A lot has changed since then, there must be a later one. The link I posted http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_14_2013_p31-535211.xml was written this year.

Also what about adding better controls, e.g. computers for piloting the spacecraft?

Edited September 17, 2013 by RAJ JAR

[Idobox]

Hey Idobox, you need to change your news source, it has 10 years of delay.

I didn't know they had achieved that. Why don't we already have practical applications ? Even if insanely expensive, and not doped, there are us for large sheets of graphene.

On the other hand there's several problem with magnetic field, it only deflect charged particle, magnetic field can be bad for human health, and you would probably need a nuclear-reactor to produce the field you want. I doubt it would make an interesting mechanic for KSP.

Static fields are not harmful until at least 1T (such a strong field would be dangerous because any screw or bolt could turn into a deadly projectile)

http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/electromagnetic-fields/l-3/8-static-fields.htm#2p0

With superconductors, you don't need any power beyond cooling. It might take a while to 'load' the thing on solar power, but there is no dissipation. Also, thermal insulation is simpler in space, with all the vacuum.

The main issue with artificial magnetospheres is the weight of the coil, and the fact they'll try to align with whatever field is present.

[AngelLestat]

You. Missed. The. Point. Again.

I don't care how much you pretend to know about material science, we are not here to prove we are engineers (plus you would need several diploma), we are discussing game mechanic and we've shown you math telling your idea can't be balanced without an absurd amount of simplification ranking up to "Let's there be light" Deus Ex Machina.

Technology only matter in that if you want more than 1 tons probes sailing 10 years, you would need technology which allow antimatter thrusters.

You said that some things are not possible for X reason, I prove you that your X reason are wrong and then you said that we are not here to disccuss that. Haha, great dodge. However to admit a bad assumption, is something that will never happen.

If we are not here to discuss that then try to not make wrong claims to prove your points.

We have the technology to make antimatter thrusters (at least with 70% of efficiency or less). But the thing that is missing is the key ingredient. Antimatter.

How to gather, how to storage it and the last problem is security, all that energy in one place and time is not something good.

Oh but he does, I don't want to get into politic but if Zubrin actually directed a National space program he would be making up his own excuses to justify redirecting funds to his project. The guy WANT to play pioneers on Mars and wont stop until he can, even if we end up wasting money to fix "unexpected difficulty" caused by immature technology (again).

But the problem is that you are ignoring his words only becouse he can be emotionally comprimise. But that is not reason enough to not check his claims. What he said sound very logic. I try to search some responce from Diaz and nothing. Or some info that will nulify Zubrin critics.. I personlly I believe that Vasimr will be a great technologie in the furute. But not now. Or we need to wait until we can send a entire city to go mars? Baby steps.

But I am with you that will not add much a manned mission to mars.. But is inspiring..and that is what we need to day.

We dont have a manned mission since 1972. They did a lot of those with that technology. What is our excuse?

Are you frigging STUPID ? How old are you really ? I'm 25 years, English isn't my native language but I know you can't misinterpret what I said that much.

Do you think I need to "accept" The Cold Equation ? I proved I understand it better than you !

Wait ! Finally it's just you being arrogant and full of yourself. Am I supposed to feel reassured just because you say I should ? You answer nothing.

By the way, you can't solve the problem by ignoring physic calculation during warp, you need it, the best you can do is a simplified single point and it still won't solve much.

Wait wait wait... somebody seems to misintepret something. I read like 3 pages back to see what I answer you and what you answer me.. and I dont find nothing wrong.

I guess you really misinterpret my comment.

I never said that you dint know the rocket equation, I was very clear (i guess, english is not my native language either) "if something WE learn" And about bitch i was talking about Tsiolkovsky equation.

So please read again becouse I can not understand your reaction.

And why we cant ignore physic calculation when we have a constant acceleration? The things break when we had a change in acceleration. Of course. you remove a little of realism. But with that excuse then, why we have time warp? It will not be more accurate to wait like the kerbal does 400 days until reach laythe? Was not you the one who said gameplay before realism?

We are unlikely to build 35 000km of 100% perfect carbon nanotube (just to support its own weight, we need better for more), then we are unlikely to build anything close to the "speedy highway to space" we dream of (you imagine the weight of a 35000km long maglev ?), and finally unlikely to protect it from space debris (the probability of an impact is in short 100%).

It does not need to be perfect. We can made a space elevator even with the 50% of the tensile strenght of CNT. And almost all the bridges are made it with materials very close to their limits. Space debris like you said is a real problem. Atmospheric crash are not a problem, even an airplane traveling at match 5 it does not represent a problem to the cable.

And, yes, you would need launch-service cheaper than a space elevator to build one... and there's more.

and not.. You dont need to rise the main diameter from the begining. First you rise a very thin cable roll, using a common rocket, and passing geo orbit you attach the cable to an asteroid (if it has ice better), you put some solar panels in the asteroid to power some thruster that will use the same ice like propelent to compensate any force that you need. The cable fall to the earth, you secure it, and then you rise other cables with a robot climber until you had the diameter that you want.

but there's dynamic structure like Launch-loop, rotovator or even a god-damned orbital-ring which do look more feasible (and crazier).

I dont know how is the procedure to construct something like Launch-loop. I know the system but I never found any detailed plan of how to do it. In my opinion seems a lot more difficult than the space elevator. After all, is like a roller coaster of 80 km high.

Kegereneku, Idobox, Rar Jar.

About magnetic shield, I guess there is some cosmic particles that is not so easy to shield from them. We unknown their source. But their are not a big problem becouse there are not so much of them. But a magnetic shield helps a lot against particles floating in the space, if we travel at relativistic speeds they can be a problem. Also against radiation comming from the sun or big planets like jupiter.

The cable it does not need to be heavy Idobox, it can be very light and big. And yes.. when you put a current in the loop you will not waste almost any energy in that.

In fact, if you are traveling to high speeds, the space dust that is deflected by the field, will charge the cable with more energy. This energy can be used in the ship to sustain with excess all the requeriemients that you need.

This produce a force in opposite direction by drag. For that reason magnetic sails are the best option to be used like brake. You can brake from 0.95c to 0.0054C in 2 years without using any propellent. Is the same reason why the bussard ramjet would not work.

http://crowlspace.com/?p=13

Ah.. it was Zubrin the first to mention the use of magnetic sails

Also the paper that Kegereneku publish about magnetic field, is from Geoffrey Landis, he works in the Niac too, and he has a lot of cool ideas. He work in many nasa projects.

I didn't know they had achieved that. Why don't we already have practical applications ? Even if insanely expensive, and not doped, there are us for large sheets of graphene.

I told you, "Head" Tennis racquets, filters, many kind of sensors are one of the things that are already in sale to the public.

Of course companies can not change from one day to another all their infrastructure to improve their products, is not cost effective. It takes some time. But is already here and can be done.

Edited September 18, 2013 by AngelLestat

[Kegereneku]

AngelLestat we never seem to be talking about the same things, and I'm sure my english isn't the problem.

First, yes you are being desperately optimist over the theoretical vs practical efficiency of beam-sail.

by the way : we don't have the technology for 70% efficients antimatter/matter thrusters, you are talking out of our ass, and we certainly WON'T have one usable on a spaceship before long.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE POINT ! Stop mixing real & game arguments.

Second, I'm saying it's unfeasible in the game (which slide to impossible easily) because of multiple both balance & game-engine limitation and try to explain them to you, although I could just wait until you make a suggestion thread and let mod-developer tell you how impossible it is. Maybe you'll believe them.

But the problem is that you are ignoring his words only becouse he can be emotionally comprimise.

I'm not ignoring him. I agree with the idea that VASIMR isn't needed to go to Mars soon, I don't agree with him that it's a sort of conspiracy against manned-mission to Mars (which have already been attempted & failed several times, because we don't have the technology). The fact that Zubric is a pioneers-spirit fan is only an indicator that he may be a dreamer or hypocritical. Just like say : Elon Musk when (under)estimating the cost and efficiency of SpaceX reusable rocket program.

The "politic part" I want to avoid is the debate about whenever or not we "need" a manned-mission to Mars. Do we need a costly propaganda operation to inspire...what ? That our economy isn't plagued by irresponsible misuse of both public and private money in this era of economic-crisis ? (please DON'T actually answer to that, it's out of topic)

At the end it's systematically a debate about wherever or not we should let Engineer-Moses lead us to promised space land.

And why we cant ignore physic calculation when we have a constant acceleration?

For starter because you still have to "steer" the things which require at least a center of mass/thrust, then because you won't have a constant acceleration in all flight configuration unless..... unless you simplify so much the system that like I told you it will be no different from a "black-box" (in a metaphorical sense) which do everything for you.

And I told you you would be forced to oversimplify it. Yet you still don't recognize that you are asking for more change than you though, it's not just the engine by the way but also the very control&navigation system as you are trying to fit a brachistochrone-gameplay in a game with fixed-maneuver node.

It does not need to be perfect. We can made a space elevator even with the 50% of the tensile strenght of CNT. And almost all the bridges are made it with materials very close to their limits. Space debris like you said is a real problem. Atmospheric crash are not a problem, even an airplane traveling at match 5 it does not represent a problem to the cable.

It does, I insist, you need at least 90% of its tensile strength, and you'll need redundancy as in "One space debris of any size should not be able to cut the tether to the point it can't support it own weight". In short : "Security Margin".

Oh and I don't understand how you can think an airplane crash at any speed isn't a problem when airliner brought down the World Trade Center.

Then Space Elevator fan always like to assume you'll be able to climb easily on a vertical and smooth cable carrying "enough weight" for it to build itself, but what if there's no climbing system which doesn't damage the cable ? The solution is frictionless maglev all the way, except that any mass added will demonstrate the tyrannic square-cube law, same for any security margin needed to avoid catastrophic cascade failures.

And my google-fu brought this : http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0601/0601668.pdf, which is why we can't just believe popular optimistic assumption.

I quote another site : "Carbon nanotubes have a few basic problems," admits Michael Laine, founder of would-be elevator builder LiftPort. "So you don't just need one breakthroughâ€â€you need six."

As for dynamic launch structure, let's just say there's as much plan to build some of them as for a space-elevator. You can easily find rough-design for rotovator which could be used "soon" for a "low cost", Launch-loop are not useful enough to get worked on, and the orbital-ring (a megascale construct) may not actually end up useful at all.

Nothing to add about the Magnetic-sail part.

We are thinking of using magnetic-tether to deorbit space junk, but as ever I invite AngelLestat to not be oblivious about theoretical-feasibility over real-feasibility.

I agree that small-scale science is rising with astounding speed, but it's no indication at all for MEGAscale engineering project.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Kegereneku

[AngelLestat]

well after the forum migration here we are.

we don't have the technology for 70% efficients antimatter/matter thrusters

Was already discover using a CERN software to emule particles, that is posible to build a magnetic nozzle of 1.5 meters and 12 Tesla (something that we can build with to day technologie) to get a efficiency of 69% (this also mean max speed 0.69c). We dont have it yet, what is the point? we dont have antimatter to test it XD, but there is nothing special in make a antimatter nozzle, if it were, then Vasimr project would be doom from start.

Second, I'm saying it's unfeasible in the game (which slide to impossible easily) because of multiple both balance & game-engine limitation and try to explain them to you, although I could just wait until you make a suggestion thread and let mod-developer tell you how impossible it is. Maybe you'll believe them.

Really? i find the other day in spaceport a mod that add a new time warp system, that ignores physics. And you were not so sure if that would was possible some days back, dont you?

The engine is not the limitation, what a engine does is take some values and then calculate physics and make the graphics.

You can see how many games that engine has and how different they are from each other.

But well, lets see if you are right when I will post it.

Elon Musk when (under)estimating the cost and efficiency of SpaceX reusable rocket program.

The "politic part" I want to avoid is the debate about whenever or not we "need" a manned-mission to Mars. Do we need a costly propaganda operation to inspire...what ? That our economy isn't plagued by irresponsible misuse of both public and private money in this era of economic-crisis ? (please DON'T actually answer to that, it's out of topic)

He under estimating at first, but he do it anyway. And in a short time maybe he would become in the most important space company.

Economic crisis? for who? if you dont want a very obvious answer, then do not make the question.

For starter because you still have to "steer" the things which require at least a center of mass/thrust, then because you won't have a constant acceleration in all flight configuration unless..... unless you simplify so much the system that like I told you it will be no different from a "black-box" (in a metaphorical sense) which do everything for you.

And I told you you would be forced to oversimplify it. Yet you still don't recognize that you are asking for more change than you though, it's not just the engine by the way but also the very control&navigation system as you are trying to fit a brachistochrone-gameplay in a game with fixed-maneuver node.

Note it.. lets see.

It does, I insist, you need at least 90% of its tensile strength, and you'll need redundancy as in "One space debris of any size should not be able to cut the tether to the point it can't support it own weight". In short : "Security Margin".

Oh and I don't understand how you can think an airplane crash at any speed isn't a problem when airliner brought down the World Trade Center.

I told you, to day tensile measures about carbon nanotube are double of the needed to build the space elevator with a safe margin. And the theorical limit of CNT is 5 times the requirements.

A airplane is not a problem, what it would be the problem? Even the world trade center pillar remain like nothing after the crash, was the "heat" the thing that melt the pillar with posterior collapse.

But CNT do not melt, and its sublimation point is higher than 4000K, is not flamable and hundred of times stronger than steal. So.. make the calc. It would cut in half any airplane.

Then Space Elevator fan always like to assume you'll be able to climb easily on a vertical and smooth cable carrying "enough weight" for it to build itself, but what if there's no climbing system which doesn't damage the cable ? The solution is frictionless maglev all the way, except that any mass added will demonstrate the tyrannic square-cube law, same for any security margin needed to avoid catastrophic cascade failures.

And my google-fu brought this : http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0601/0601668.pdf, which is why we can't just believe popular optimistic assumption.

I quote another site : "Carbon nanotubes have a few basic problems," admits Michael Laine, founder of would-be elevator builder LiftPort. "So you don't just need one breakthroughâ€â€you need six."

Using your same argument against zubrin.. Liftport company wants to build a moon space elevator

But about the chain reaction, yes, is the bigger issue right now. And the michael laine study is based in how strong need to be the cable to avoid that. But... there is ways to mitigate that problem without extra strenght margin.

One way is plain cable, like you saw in almost all videos. The chance of chain reaction in that is almost none. But it can has other issues. But there are different ways to weave the cable to avoid that. (I cant find the different example images of that weave, I will post it later). So using different way to weave the cable at different heights you will have a way to solve that problem.

As for dynamic launch structure, let's just say there's as much plan to build some of them as for a space-elevator. You can easily find rough-design for rotovator which could be used "soon" for a "low cost", Launch-loop are not useful enough to get worked on, and the orbital-ring (a megascale construct) may not actually end up useful at all.

"Rough", very rough.. The space elevator has hundred of papers and detailed schematics drawings.

[Kegereneku]

I was hoping I could write this as a PM but it's 2 times the maximum length for PM.

I hope nobody mind us raising the topic again for our little debate.

Was already discover using a CERN software to emule particles, that is posible to build a magnetic nozzle of 1.5 meters and 12 Tesla (something that we can build with to day technologie). We dont have it yet, what is the point?

There again, you keep focusing only on a tiny bit not representative of global feasibility.

And look at what you are saying :

- You know we never actually built a thruster-grade anti-matter/matter system. (example : capable of more than a few particles, and propel reactive mass)

- You know that we are actually testing in space a fully functional VASIMR thruster.

Yet, you are okay with implying that VASIMR ask for A/M-thruster as a prerequisite ? First, its the reverse, then it's not just the lack of "fuel". Just containing anti-matter efficiently and on a large scale ask for several breakthroughs (I shouldn't need to precise that, but you are a slippery guy), handling the nuclear reaction ask for other breakthroughs...etc

And you ask the point, there's so many points I can't seem to make you understand that I'm loosing track of them.

- One point was that you had to stop quoting context-less numbers as crystal-clear proof of feasibility.

- The following one was that since KSP is ultimately a game, actual feasibility matter less than gameplay.

I could squeeze a point that you keep being slippery.

- The latest point is that technological breakthrough are quite rare, very limited, and looking at history never really what we hoped for.

And before you say it, be both know informatics only lived up to the hype because story-writer and media lacked sense of scale (like you) and preferred human-touch. We still don't have the soft-AI promised by SF.

Graphene and CNT do miracle on the micro/macro-scale, yes, but Megascale is something different of many magnitude.

Really? i find the other day in spaceport a mod that add a new time warp system, that ignores physics. And you were not so sure if that would was possible some days back, dont you?

The engine is not the limitation, what a engine does is take some values and then calculate physics and make the graphics.

You can see how many games that engine has and how different they are from each other.

But well, lets see if you are right when I will post it.

No no no, I said the BEAM-SAIL GAMEPLAY is -I quote myself- "unfeasible in the game (which slide to impossible easily) because of multiple both balance & game-engine limitation"

JUST "Ignoring physics" is easy as hell, THAT'S HOW THE WARP SYSTEM WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE !

(and your mind is apparently capable of ignoring whatever I say)

The thing is : Ignoring ALL physics is not what a beam-sail gameplay need and even less the only thing, as you implied right there.

For a Beam-sail gameplay we'd need to recalculate our trajectory during the entire cruise following several parameters while making the whole thing playable (as in : actually having fun with it, not just making it work) which is what I do consider impossible...

...unless you simplify (as ever) the gameplay so there's no energy fluctuation, no loss of acceleration when steering, no shadow, no change of vector outside warp (the slightly more evolved maneuver node) and most importantly no actual need to control the sail-ship during its warp-cruise. I'll also remind you that Brachistochrone-transfer are also prone of overshooting the target easily if you don't give tool for the player. Yes you can theoretically calculate it and create a glowy bar showing when you can start using your "breaking sail" (which again suppose a lot of simplification) anyway we are talking of a lot of work here for the developer, a whole new gameplay and interface.

Keep in mind that I NEVER said it was impossible to code, just that it sound too much trouble to integrate in this game.

And yes the Unity/Physics engine are limited.

Why do you think there's so many "64 bits support" (and "multi-threading support") thread ? It's because regardless of the speed of the processor the size of the number used matter a lot for both speed and precision. Yes you can say "f*ck you" and tell everybody they just need a "real PC" but that's not how you create a game. And remember than the Developers didn't created the engines themselves so they can't make it "tailor-made", you need to make some concession.

So, let just conclude that you won't convince me before a modder do create that fun beam-sail gameplay and also manage to keep it balanced with stock thrusters... And not just the easiest parts that can't represent the full thing.

He under estimating at first, but he do it anyway. And in a short time maybe he would become in the most important space company.

Economic crisis? for who? if you dont want a very obvious answer, then do not make the question.

He's still underestimating how low he'll reach you know, and yes maybe he will become the "best", especially since there's not a lot of competitor, none if he DO manage the re-usable part. I'm not claiming he won't achieve anything, I'm proving you that there's a big gap between what can be done in a 10-50 years time gap and what one promise for media coverage or in a very-limited-with-lot-of-assumptions feasibility-study.

The next hype may be this one :

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/13/microsoft-founder-announces-spaceflight-company-promises-airport-like/

I told you, to day tensile measures about carbon nanotube are double of the needed to build the space elevator with a safe margin. And the theorical limit of CNT is 5 times the requirements.

And I told you that you that it have to be "flawless" all along the 32 000km, the quality control have to be extremely tight and still won't help if the tether is damaged by anything after it. Weaving the cable in different ways won't solve everything. Since the tether will certainly be in several parts you also have to check if the wielding won't be a weaker point.

Even theoretically it would work only if the weight of the CNT was the only thing you need to support which is unlikely unless you can somehow work with only the tether/ribbon weight and strictly no added mass and necessarily-heavier metal.

Basically you have to hope you'll never need a continuous stream of equipment along the cable. This point get critical even if, for safety, you use several ribbon/tether all capable of supporting the weight of an entire-ribbon (unless you can "decouple" the entire tether) but also the equipment-load, all in the safety margin.

And let's not forget about space debris ! You'll also need some way to make the tether avoid them, constantly, don't you think ?

Then nobody will be willing to jeopardize the whole project because several month of radiation deteriorated the cable beyond the safety margin, so you'll need to replace either an entire ribbon or part of it. Supposing we used 1km long parts, add 32000x the weight of the attach system, 32000x the weight of whatever allow another tether to support the weight (which will increase a lot following the geometry)

Lastly you have to make it cheaper than conventional rocket which can be replaced easily. This is why I consider the space elevator "impossible" for as far as we can plan today.

A airplane is not a problem, what it would be the problem? Even the world trade center pillar remain like nothing after the crash, was the "heat" the thing that melt the pillar with posterior collapse.

But CNT do not melt, and its sublimation point is higher than 4000K, is not flamable and hundred of times stronger than steal. So.. make the calc. It would cut in half any airplane.

Yet the WTC wasn't supposed to crumble even "losing a few struts", are you assuming that a space elevator will be as thick and as redundant than the WTC ?

I don't need to check for Resilience vs Toughness or several other criteria to know a small tether/ribbon may not resist either a collision with the hardest component of a airplane or the sheer inertia applied on a small area, just a chock wave can break something.

Are you starting to see my point ?

This is not because you believe to have solved one problem that you solved any relevant problems.

We lost a lot of thing against things we underestimated. We lost bridge because we didn't believed the wing could make it resonate, I've seen how you needed to wrap a cable in helix around bridged-tether so the ice and wind don't wear it.

Using your same argument against zubrin.. Liftport company wants to build a moon space elevator

What was my argument "against" (trusting) Zubrin, The need for orbital infrastructure first ?

Anyway, a Moon space elevator would be easy as hell compared to Earth based one, so if we have problem just with that...

[AngelLestat]

It seems that I need to clear something up in case you have not noticed yet.

I know the things that I'm talking about!

I am not a kid who saw a documentary and then start to talk making some asumptions of that.

I am engineer and I love science, technologie and physics. I am susbcribe to 2 science news that I read "every day". Also when something call my attention I keep searching about that until I am totally sure that I am not missing nothing.

I dont take any source for granted, If my common sense tells me that there is something wrong in some note that I read, then I keep searching. I hate to be wrong about something, or claim something that is not. I guess I share the science phylosofy in that.

One year back I start to get interested a lot more in interstellar travel (I really knew many things by then), so I start search about that and keep note of some information, formules and links.

I read like hundreds of papers of beamed propulsion, also some books. I also read a lot about other kinds of propulsions. One of the leaders from the Icarus project was very kind to spend some time with me discussing the feasibility of the Avatar ship, he also guide me with many studies and papers and help me to understand some things that was complicated for me in that time. Like what is the difference of a photon rocket with beamed propulsion. Why if you absorb gama radiation like heat and you redirect in a collimated way you get almost the 100% of that energy in thrust, but if you emit photons and this bounce in a sail you only get 2/c of the thrust. Well he help me to understand those things and many others.

And if I found a problem like laser efficiency, accuracy, sail materials...Then I keep searching about breakthrough in those fields (optics, materials, etc) to see if something could solve those problems.

One example, 2 days back some scientists found a way to make a perfect mirror. You know what this is mean? That you can scale up lasers without loose any efficiency. (between many other things).

So now if you wanna do a claim or said that I am do not know what I am talking about, please make your own reasearch before and try to be sure. And I know the time that it takes for some technologies find practical uses in the real world. How I tell you guys many times, 5 years to graphene touchscreens and less than 10 years to graphene composite materials to airplanes and other kind of vehicles. We can take a bet in this if you want.. I would bet millons if I had. That is how sure I am. Becouse I know and I understand the real state of those technologies right now and the cost and manufacture time changes that require.

I can answer you, but not every time that you are too lazy to check the thing that you are talking about.

And look at what you are saying :

- You know we never actually built a thruster-grade anti-matter/matter system. (example : capable of more than a few particles, and propel reactive mass)

- You know that we are actually testing in space a fully functional VASIMR thruster.

Yet, you are okay with implying that VASIMR ask for A/M-thruster as a prerequisite ? First, its the reverse, then it's not just the lack of "fuel". Just containing anti-matter efficiently and on a large scale ask for several breakthroughs (I shouldn't need to precise that, but you are a slippery guy), handling the nuclear reaction ask for other breakthroughs...etc

You know that we never actually testing in space a fullly functional artificial gravity device?? What it does mean?? It means NOTHING! We can build it werever we want. Is physics and we understand the principles the same way that we understand magnetic fields.

And it would be pointless build one becouse we dont have ANTIMATTER.

But like you said they will test a vasimr (kinda device) in the space station. And this device come with a "magnetic nozzle" the same main component of an antimatter thruster!

And we need to wait until this magnetic nozzle (between many others) is test it to see what would happen or we can predict what it would happen taking like evidence all the thing that we know about magnetic fields and the millons experiments already made like the fusion Tokamak prototipe in europe, or the CERN that keeps and move hundreds of particless with incredible accuracy and then trap and move some of the antiparticles by manetic pipes to store them in a container all with magnetic fields.

To get energy from antimatter you only need to put together matter with antimatter. There is nothing special about that.

One more thing, antimatter reaction is not a Nuclear reaction.

- The following one was that since KSP is ultimately a game, actual feasibility matter less than gameplay.

I am just answer you the bad asumptions or claims that you do. Like the ones that I dont know what I am talking about. But we can talk about gameplay wherever you want.

And before you say it, be both know informatics only lived up to the hype because story-writer and media lacked sense of scale (like you) and preferred human-touch. We still don't have the soft-AI promised by SF.

Graphene and CNT do miracle on the micro/macro-scale, yes, but Megascale is something different of many magnitude.

But I am not talking about novel SF, that is the main difference. I am using facts and thing that we already know.

And about CNT and graphene, maybe you know more than me that I check all the advances in that field almost every week.

The thing is : Ignoring ALL physics is not what a beam-sail gameplay need and even less the only thing, as you implied right there.

For a Beam-sail gameplay we'd need to recalculate our trajectory during the entire cruise following several parameters while making the whole thing playable (as in : actually having fun with it, not just making it work) which is what I do consider impossible...

...unless you simplify (as ever) the gameplay so there's no energy fluctuation, no loss of acceleration when steering, no shadow, no change of vector outside warp (the slightly more evolved maneuver node) and most importantly no actual need to control the sail-ship during its warp-cruise. I'll also remind you that Brachistochrone-transfer are also prone of overshooting the target easily if you don't give tool for the player. Yes you can theoretically calculate it and create a glowy bar showing when you can start using your "breaking sail" (which again suppose a lot of simplification) anyway we are talking of a lot of work here for the developer, a whole new gameplay and interface.

I am not asking for more blackbox that the game already use. The rocket engines calculates the chemical reactions between the oxidizer and fuel to calculate the thrust? Not. Is just a number set up that emule the reality.

You need to point manually you solar panels to the sun?

What would be the fun to keep track of the laser beam 4 years until you reach the star? But yes I plain allow movement of the sail near a star.

But all this will be clear when I post the suggestion. But first I need to do some graphics to help in the understanding.

I will post it next week.

And yes the Unity/Physics engine are limited.

Calculation limit it does not have much to do with "gameplay rules" limits. If you understand what I mean.

The next hype may be this one :

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...-airport-like/

I hear Elon Musk talk about the airplane stage Idea, his team made some calculations and they conclude that is not worth it, but is a good method too.

Weaving the cable in different ways won't solve everything

Why not? it changes everything.

Even theoretically it would work only if the weight of the CNT was the only thing you need to support which is unlikely unless you can somehow work with only the tether/ribbon weight and strictly no added mass and necessarily-heavier metal.

Basically you have to hope you'll never need a continuous stream of equipment along the cable. This point get critical even if, for safety, you use several ribbon/tether all capable of supporting the weight of an entire-ribbon (unless you can "decouple" the entire tether) but also the equipment-load, all in the safety margin.

Why you would need heavy metal? You are creating imaginary problems. And if at certain heights you need some kind of covering to protect the cable, it would be only a covering. It would weight a lot less than the cable.

Also all the payload weight is insignificant in comparison with the cable weight. Is like a huge suspension bridge bridge in comparison with the cars that needs to carry.

About radiation and space debris why you dont search how this problems can be mitigated.

Yet the WTC wasn't supposed to crumble even "losing a few struts", are you assuming that a space elevator will be as thick and as redundant than the WTC ?

And once more, the trade center fall becouse all the floor was on FIRE for 1 hour! SO all the pillar were weak for the heat.

Lastly you have to make it cheaper than conventional rocket which can be replaced easily. This is why I consider the space elevator "impossible" for as far as we can plan today

But if is economically viable is a very different thing that if is possible. We are talking if is possible.

The first thing that I said was that I dont believe they built it taking into account the new materials weight in conjunction with skylon.

We lost a lot of thing against things we underestimated. We lost bridge because we didn't believed the wing could make it resonate, I've seen how you needed to wrap a cable in helix around bridged-tether so the ice and wind don't wear it.

We lost a bridge, but that chance never prevented to us to start build it in first place. We made our calculates and we considerer the risk. If we need it.. and the risk are aceptables. We build it.. That is with all the thing that we do.

We would not had any advances otherwise.

Anyway, a Moon space elevator would be easy as hell compared to Earth based one, so if we have problem just with that...

But a hell less usefull too. And when I talk about space elevator, or when companies talk about space elevator, they talk to start the construction in 2040. That is totally feasible at least from the physics point of view.

[Kegereneku]

You don't have to clear anything, I know you claim to be a material engineer since the very first time you presented this idea.

But you have Tunnel Vision and the things we are talking about cannot be turned into "fact" without several teams of multidisciplinary engineers.

I know I'm not writing several page of carefully worded argument for a 16 years old religious kid with delusion of grandeur.

I'm doing that for a overly optimistic engineer with delusion of grandeur. If you want my pedigree I'm a Aeronautic/aerospace engineer specialized in electronic and informatics. But it barely make any difference in a discussion like this. Common sense do and in my opinion you are failing big time.

I don't believe to be making much assumptions, but I think you are. You are the one claiming to know more about the feasibility of something than a world of engineer just because you read a paper you liked. Don't waste your time demonstrating me how you fairly analyze them and just check how you did it until now.

You meeting a leader of the Icarus project don't change anything. Zubrin, Musk, I've heard engineer say the darnest things because they know perfectly it is just a cool guideline unrepresentative of what they are actually trying to achieve.

You might want to check out the Dunning–Kruger effect

As for me. I'm just pointing out how little you encompass the scale of what you talk about. I do have some "belief" but I'm not acting like mine matter more than yours.

Now I'll try to avoid some Kessler QUOTING syndrome.

We can build it werever we want. Is physics and we understand the principles the same way that we understand magnetic fields.

[...]

To get energy from antimatter you only need to put together matter with antimatter. There is nothing special about that.

And once again, like everything else we ever discussed you refuse to accept that there's more to account for actual feasibility than what you saw.

There's more to an A/M thruster than just putting two particle in contact. If you want to talk prerequesite, reality is demonstrating right now that VASIMR came out before "mastered Nuclear Fusion", and nothing say it make matter/antimatter thruster feasible before.

But I am not talking about novel SF, that is the main difference. I am using facts and thing that we already know.

And about CNT and graphene, maybe you know more than me that I check all the advances in that field almost every week.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything start looking like a nail" (if you see what I mean), knowing what graphene do don't nullify all other field's problem or make 0.5C Beam-sail probes less than science-fiction (over a 50y timeframe). Just like Fusion-spaceship is still SF regardless of what graphene could do to help it come true.

You are not using facts, you are claiming the facts you found make your own made-up facts truer.

I am not asking for more blackbox that the game already use. The rocket engines calculates the chemical reactions between the oxidizer and fuel to calculate the thrust? Not. Is just a number set up that emule the reality.

You need to point manually you solar panels to the sun?

What would be the fun to keep track of the laser beam 4 years until you reach the star? But yes I plain allow movement of the sail near a star.

But all this will be clear when I post the suggestion. But first I need to do some graphics to help in the understanding.

I will post it next week.

But you are asking for more blackbox. The majority of what you ask for isn't comparable or compatible with KSP's basic gameplay. And more importantly not manageable humanely without help. To give you another example of things you'll need to put in your suggestion : Would the throttling of a Beam sail-ship be based on the efficiency of its sail, or the power beamed by the laser ? How to deal with several laser at different location ? How to control the gliding ?...etc

You seem to be acting like blackbox is bad, but it's a fondamental building block for video game (and it take time to program)

To be clear, the simulated chemical reaction is a game-mechanic, not a blackbox. A blackbox would be Maneuver Node and orbit prediction.

Calculation limit it does not have much to do with "gameplay rules" limits. If you understand what I mean.

It have everything to do with it, why do you think the warp system put everything on rail ?

I'll be using false number here (to explain) but you cannot calculate simultaneously the position of several objects 100 000 000 km away and position them to the millimeter, which mean numbers high up to "100 000 000 000 000" if not just the computer but also the engine can't deal with number that high.

And that was mostly for performance, there's more problem with game-mechanic :

Around 15 years ago video game had little to no physics engines, just compare Half-Life 1 and 2. Meaning that if a game engine DON'T allow something, you have to make concession, play pretend, simplify water as frictionless gelo.

So please don't answer me "my proposal don't ask for anything impossible" (dodging the point again) because the point is you just don't realize how much you ask.

Anyway, If you are going to make a thread later then let's wait and let this thread fade away.

Why not? it changes everything.

No, weaving the cable only change the cable theoretical limit we already talked about. It doesn't solves all of the many other problem I mentioned. Didn't you read what I wrote ?

Why you would need heavy metal? You are creating imaginary problems. And if at certain heights you need some kind of covering to protect the cable, it would be only a covering. It would weight a lot less than the cable.

Also all the payload weight is insignificant in comparison with the cable weight. Is like a huge suspension bridge bridge in comparison with the cars that needs to carry.

About radiation and space debris why you dont search how this problems can be mitigated.

[sarcasm]Oh yes you are right ! Why would I use other metal than CNT or graphene, oh silly me ![/sarcasm] -> you are being stupid.

On airplane we count each gram needed to attach/wield two piece together and the material its made of. This is not because "airplane are made of aluminum/carbon fiber" that they are only made of it. Here we are talking of 32 000 km of any other stuff.

Yes the "payload" weight will be insignificant but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking of the weight of the Non-stress-bearing equipments all along the tether in comparison of the weight of the stress-bearing CNT.

If you need 80% of CNT to support safely the 20% of equipments, and said equipment have a high minimal weight then it can change the feasibility from "nowhere soon" to "impossible with this technology"

I did searched how debris and radiation can be mitigated, and also if those solutions are reasonable, so far they aren't and create more problem than they solves.

You realize how far we are in this discussion ?

I just said the concept of space elevator was far less feasible that people (like you) make it out to be and you keep trying to convince me that its "not impossible". I agreed it was possible ! When are you going to admit you can't think of everything ?

We lost a bridge, but that chance never prevented to us to start build it in first place. We made our calculates and we considerer the risk. If we need it.. and the risk are aceptables. We build it.. That is with all the thing that we do.

We would not had any advances otherwise.

That's one of the rare thing you said actually 100% right since the start of our discussion. Yet a bridge don't get built when we know they have single-point catastrophic failure, like most concept of space elevator.

[RAJ JAR]

Okay I think we are going off topic here...Back on topic now

They should definitely add existing technology we know that is working to keep it in the realm of reality, like the xenon ion engine, VASIMR, solar sail which will be launched next year, esail cubes which have been launched and so on. What about this magnetoplasmadynamic thruster? I have read this can move above 100,000 mph or mps and has very high ISP? Apparently the japanese have tested this and NASA? Does anyone else know about this?

What about building a rotating body to produce artificial gravity?

Edited September 29, 2013 by RAJ JAR

[RAJ JAR]

Also what about improved computers for better navigation and control?

[AngelLestat]

Kegereneku: Ok we can continue with this discussion after I post a detailed idea of what I am talking about. Before that this discussion will be pointess. So until then you can keep the last words.

By the way.. I am not material enginner, I am system. For that reason I like find any kind of system and try to improve it.

Rar Jar: about artificial graviry is something that squad shoud add. Is not difficult to made one from stock parts, but we need an extra part that allow some axis of rotation. Or maybe some kind of rope (mars direct style).

About Computers, you mean like mechjeb or KOS? Yeah it can be. But those mods already did a good job in that, I would preffer that squad spend some time in other things missing.

[RAJ JAR]

Does the kerbal astronaut age? If so how about adding a cryogenic bed? What else could we add on the game besides propulsion, newer materials to build with, power generation? What about advanced batteries? Also can we set up colonies on other planets? Better thrusters? How about newer solor panels? Communication systems? Clothing? Propulsion, newer materials and power generation are a must! How about newer sensors?

[RAJ JAR]

When you say missing, what would you suggest?

Also what about adding hypersonic planes from the past, present? e.g. x-15, hypersonic scram jet being tested?

[RAJ JAR]

Look what I have found! http://www.space.com/23084-mars-exploration-nuclear-fusion-rocket.html . Also read an article about solor panels which can also absorb heat as well as light for power. What about thorium reactors?

[AngelLestat]

Thanks for the news Raj jar, but you need to take care, double posts or revive old topics is not very well seen for mods