What DON'T we want in KSP?

[Unfawkable]

1) One third of all the star systems in our galaxy have more than one star. In fact, it is more likely for a sun-size star in our galaxy to be part of a multiple star system than not.

2) The distance between Alpha Centauri A and B is at its greatest point equal to the distance between the sun and Pluto. So it is in fact very possible to have stars in a binary system be close to each other. However, in the interest of stable planetary orbits, we'd probably want to use the distance between Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri as a reference, which is 0.2 light years. Translated to Kerbal distances, this would be approximately 0.018 light-year.

3) So a propulsion system that could get you to 2% of c (feasible with one or several of the many proposed STL propulsion systems), it would take a year to get to the other star, a time which can be reasonably warped through (especially if higher warps are added). If you bump it up to 10% of c (the speed of the proposed Project Daedalus ship), the travel time becomes 2 and a half months.

I would argue that having Kerbol be part of a multiple-star system is both more fun AND more realistic than adding FTL.

Even with being a supporter of FTL, I have to agree this sounds absolutely kick ass. Especially if the stars would have different inclinations and so much different planetary orbits amongst each other.

[Murph]

The thing about impossible speeds, and the like, is that we've broken the impossible before, many times.

In the early days of the railways, it was thought that the human body could not withstand travelling at 100mph (I think that was the number, it was laughably small by today's standards)!

Then there was the speed of sound.

Then 2x, 3x, etc the speed of sound.

The British government once thought that 6 large computers (the regional computing centres) would be sufficient for the entire country! Those large computers of the day were less powerful than today's cellphones.

Physics once considered atoms to be the smallest particle of matter.

Physics later considered protons, neutrons, and electrons to be the smallest particles of matter.

Splitting the atom was once thought to be impossible.

Physics continues to discover and understand more and more sub-atomic particles and forces, and to refine their model of how it all works. I don't see them doing themselves out of a job any time soon.

Science has a long and noble history of redefining what's possible and impossible.

FTL is impossible today. Close to c is more or less impossible today. Tomorrow? Who knows, but every tomorrow brings something new, and one of those tomorrows might just bring c to the table.

As far as KSP goes, I'm all for the based-on-reality physics that we currently have, and keeping to that on the whole. That said, however, KSP is a game, and I don't have any issues with us getting a Roddenberry-esque warp drive a little bit ahead of reality, if it helps make KSP even more AWESOME! CERN already have anti-matter and anti-matter containment. Perhaps KERN might manage to create a suitable matter/anti-matter reactor, with some kilithium crystals?

[Camacha]

Realistically, the rocket parts wouldn't exist until after the rocket design that uses them existed. So the parts would be built to match the spec, not the other way around.

I reality it is a little of both; NASA and other space agencies will build custom equipment for a mission if none exists. However, as they are founded in the real world where money talks, often old equipment gets repurposed (newly built, but based on old designs) to reduce costs. This will mean that parts are not always as they would be when following an ideal new design.

Developing new parts from scratch costs massive amounts of money, so sometimes it is more cost effective to use existing parts that are less than ideal and compensate for that in another way.

[Kegereneku]

I don't get why so many people want a new star system or insist it's planned like a real feature... It's on the "do no suggest list" for many reasons.

For now we barely have anything to do on each planet, and only the challenge as a motivation.

Just so you know : A properly implemented FTL mechanic wouldn't get in the way of anything. but there's a lot of problems with trying to allow interstellar travel in KSP in a "classical way" :

- KSP's physic engine precision is finite, same as Timewarp.

- Any engine able to accelerate meaningful payload to 0.2C will make interplanetary travel easy (including beamed-sail), and orbital maneuver trivial.

- KSP is not a simulator. It work on magic to allow "rocket-punk" gameplay, technology evolve like a tree and defy what is feasible, engine can be throttled from 0 to 100% ...etc... I could continue for hours until FTL will become more logical than conventional engine.

- KSP is a game, it need to be fun above anything else and career will be built around gameplay not reality.

And that's putting aside that in the real world our physic models have and will, change radically in the future, keeping the potential to "allow" FTL travel.

So there's really no reason to be sick of seeing an exotic gameplay as an end-game feature to keep the game fun.

[Serratus]

1) One third of all the star systems in our galaxy have more than one star. In fact, it is more likely for a sun-size star in our galaxy to be part of a multiple star system than not.

2) The distance between Alpha Centauri A and B is at its greatest point equal to the distance between the sun and Pluto. So it is in fact very possible to have stars in a binary system be close to each other. However, in the interest of stable planetary orbits, we'd probably want to use the distance between Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri as a reference, which is 0.2 light years. Translated to Kerbal distances, this would be approximately 0.018 light-year.

3) So a propulsion system that could get you to 2% of c (feasible with one or several of the many proposed STL propulsion systems), it would take a year to get to the other star, a time which can be reasonably warped through (especially if higher warps are added). If you bump it up to 10% of c (the speed of the proposed Project Daedalus ship), the travel time becomes 2 and a half months.

I would argue that having Kerbol be part of a multiple-star system is both more fun AND more realistic than adding FTL.

To clarify - I wasn't in anyway talking about binary systems! Only of completely separate stars and my previous comment only applied to interstellar travel. Besides as I said the FTL would be only useful after leaving Star/stars SoI (btw is travelling between stars in binary system and "interstellar" travel?) so it would have no aplication in binary sys. anyway.

However! Binary (or more) star systems are an example of n-body physics which is on the list of "do-not-suggest-ever-at-all-no-I'm-serious-don't-even-try-it" and SQUAD made it perfectly clear that this is an issue they will not discus again, no matter how many ppl start wining about it. So there's Your answer about close distance stars. The only way we get any other systems is with single stars, far away.

The closest star to our system is (from wiki) Andromeda -

10.322 ly. (let's assume 10 ly). KSP universe is at scale factor x0.1

That means that travelling at light speed (not just 2%) would take a year in-game. At 2% ~40 years in-game (this maths was done with 'MyBrain" tm so it could be very wrong somewhere). We would need what I call "stupid-warp-speeds" (a notch higher from "ridiculous-warp-speed") to even get near it in a day-long playing session. Not fun, not playable, not a game. A simulator. Tedious in other words.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Serratus

[John FX]

Jeez... Get over it guys. FTL is a fact. A feature that has been planned and will happen, period. Get over it. I've been away for a couple of months and the first thing I see when I come back is the same topic ppl were complaining all the way back from 0.10 to 0.20. Get over Yourselves! FTL is happening, but no one has to use it. You don't have to move one inch from Kerbin sys. So let's all just chill guys.

Any chance you could point us to where it is said that "FTL is a fact. A feature that has been planned and will happen, period." please?

I can`t seem to find it in planned features...

Which is sort of where I would expect to see a planned feature. I assume from your vitriol that is is plainly stated somewhere.

[Wahgineer]

But this is a game, it's primarily supposed to be fun, and after the fun part, it's supposed to be accurate. Not the other way around

This guy gets it.

OK. Now THAT just breaks the realism completely. One thing that KSP has that few other games out there have is consistency of scales.

It would not. FTL Kerbal style is - as Harv explained LONG ago - only operational far away from any grav source (because it's based on it in a smaller scale). You need to leave Jools orbit far behind to go FTL, otherwise it'll rip the ship apart. So it only becomes useful when all standard technology stops to make a difference. And that is a good compromise to keep the game both reasonably realistic and keep gameplay value at high level.

If ppl want ultra realistic simulation they can play Orbiter.

This guy gets it, too.

You see people, when FTL supporters think warpdrive, an over powered interplanetary engine is not our first and only thought. We do realize that it is theoretical/plausible science, but we also realize that ksp is a game and needs to be fun as well as accurate. Yet everyone thinks that "Your a FTL supporter!?!?(gasp) Sacrilege! Heresy! You are witch! Burn her! Burn her! To the scales!, etc." . This is also the reason why we keep bringing up the topic: because we want to get it through your heads that ksp is a game, stl would make interstellar travel tedious, and that a properly implemented warpdrive would have its place in the game. But you don't listen to us, thinking we are a bunch of stupid, illiterate squeakers who have no idea about the implications of star travel and ftl, and in turn act like a bunch of squeakers to prove FTL is evil black magic (like the ion drive ) and that slow, humongous, computer melting ships that take hours to get anywhere are the superior, clean, righteous, and practical way of getting from kerbol to Harvest Alpha.

When you seriously stop beating us over the head with 'STL is the master race' , we'll seriously stop trying to suggest to you how and why should FTL be implemented.

[Serratus]

Any chance you could point us to where it is said that "FTL is a fact. A feature that has been planned and will happen, period." please?

I can`t seem to find it in planned features...

Which is sort of where I would expect to see a planned feature. I assume from your vitriol that is is plainly stated somewhere.

AFAIK it was never on the list (or maybe it was on the old one), and my link to Harv post explaining it no longer works (it's a link to old forum which idk how to access). Basically he clearly stated that he already has a working and tested mechanic of how and why warp drive works but also made it clear that the actual 'part' employing that mechanic won't be included in the game until there's somewhere to go. He then proceeded to explain in length how he made it, what problems did he encounter (kraken!) and how he managed to work around them.

Basically warp drive in KSP will be nothing more than game creating a "bubble" of space around the ship. The ship will be completely stationary in reference to the bubble, which will be the one being moved around the universe. It was done that way because in pre-kraken-dead times, accelerating to ftl speed would crash the ship. But this way the ship actually remains stationary - it's the bubble that's moving, and since from game engine perspective it's a solid object with no collision mesh and durability, kraken couldn't destroy it.

That's the short version as I remember it. Just keep in mind I might forgotten something.

PS. You may notice that this "bubble" technology sounds somewhat similar to how time warp works, doesn't it?

PPS. From this day on, I challenge everyone to refer to FTL in KSP as "Bubble technology".

Edited December 13, 2013 by Serratus

[Seret]

stl would make interstellar travel tedious

What makes you think there will ever be other stars in stock KSP?

[Daisai]

What makes you think there will ever be other stars in stock KSP?

Why wouldn't there be different solar systems ?

[AngelLestat]

The thing about impossible speeds, and the like, is that we've broken the impossible before, many times.

Science has a long and noble history of redefining what's possible and impossible.

FTL is impossible today. Close to c is more or less impossible today. Tomorrow? Who knows, but every tomorrow brings something new, and one of those tomorrows might just bring c to the table.

Yeah yeah yeah.. and in the past someone said that the earth was flat. But who said that? Ignorant people.

300 years bc someone with brain calculate its circumference with almost no error only based in some shadows at different location.

Now science is much more accurate than it was before. If a scientist needs to make a claim, they need at least sigma 5, this mean 99,99994% sure about that.

And you said Close to C is MORE or less.... More?? This is a trully evidence that you need reappraise about your stand.

Massless particles reach C all the time. Particles with mass reach almost C all the time in particle accelerators.

Now.. Try to find any kind of particle or theory where FTL is possible.

Is like to said that lift a montain is easier than lift a feather. Thanks to us, thermodinamics exist to put a break to this nosense.

.

Where is my last private reply about genes?

Just so you know : A properly implemented FTL mechanic wouldn't get in the way of anything. but there's a lot of problems with trying to allow interstellar travel in KSP in a "classical way" :

Hi there.

- Any engine able to accelerate meaningful payload to 0.2C will make interplanetary travel easy (including beamed-sail), and orbital maneuver trivial.

Last time that I check laser beams dont bend. The laser battery needs to be close to the star (sun-kerbol). The sail has a high cost, all the problems pointing and waiting to the exact time and date to make a push increase the cost and difficulty of something that you can solve with just chemical rockets.

It will be possible try for fun, yes.. it will be practical? no.

- KSP is not a simulator. It work on magic to allow "rocket-punk" gameplay, technology evolve like a tree and defy what is feasible, engine can be throttled from 0 to 100% ...etc... I could continue for hours until FTL will become more logical than conventional engine.

I answer this here

- KSP is a game, it need to be fun above anything else and career will be built around gameplay not reality.

What is the things that all last games pursue? Reality. Is the thing that let you feel like you were there. Of course is not easy to simulate.

Of course there are things that can be avoided, (after all we are not a group of scientist planing a mission by several years), but this has nothing to do with FTL.

And that's putting aside that in the real world our physic models have and will, change radically in the future, keeping the potential to "allow" FTL travel.

So there's really no reason to be sick of seeing an exotic gameplay as an end-game feature to keep the game fun.

I answer already the first line.

Fun ? And who said that add an imaginary warp drive will add fun to a serious space program game?

However! Binary (or more) star systems are an example of n-body physics which is on the list of "do-not-suggest-ever-at-all-no-I'm-serious-don't-even-try-it" and SQUAD made it perfectly clear that this is an issue they will not discus again, no matter how many ppl start wining about it. So there's Your answer about close distance stars. The only way we get any other systems is with single stars, far away.

Why you need n-body physics to add another star system???

Why it can not be on rail like all other planets in KSP?

And if you are in a galaxy or star cluster, a close star it will move in the same direcction and almost the same speed that your star. So you can forget about the galaxy and use fixed position in both stars.

This guy gets it.

This guy gets it, too.

This guy not gets it

Edited December 13, 2013 by AngelLestat

[Seret]

Why wouldn't there be different solar systems ?

Unless you hear word from a dev saying that it's on the roadmap, assume that it isn't. The only stuff the devs have ever talked about is more stuff within the Kerbol system.

[Serratus]

Why you need n-body physics to add another star system???

Why it can not be on rail like all other planets in KSP?

And if you are in a galaxy or star cluster, a close star it will move in the same direcction and almost the same speed that your star. So you can forget about the galaxy and use fixed position in both stars.

This guy not gets it

You need n-body physics to implement binary star systems, if for no other reason then because there would be 2 SoIs - one for each star - influencing any body within reach. Plus binary systems don't have planets or have them for a short time afaik.

And no - You can't put them on rail unless you modify game engine to support non-elliptic paths because orbits can get seriously weird and quite frankly unpredictable in binary systems. Namely they change with every pass. So no rail.

And stars are NEVER stationary in relation to one another. Never.

EDIT:

Ps. I do get it, I promise

Pps. Pleas, no one send me that link to wiki page that describes that hypothetical planet orbit in binary system that's stable. That's just a hypothetical orbit, and only works in perfect conditions. In other words - it's not realistically possible outside mathematical models.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Serratus

[Daisai]

Unless you hear word from a dev saying that it's on the roadmap, assume that it isn't. The only stuff the devs have ever talked about is more stuff within the Kerbol system.

So far they have said that they will first finish the kerbol system before adding other systems, not that they will not add other systems even when the first system is done.

Also the topic is called "what we don't want in ksp"

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1qjoe2/we_are_the_makers_of_kerbal_space_program_ask_us/

"Have you considered expanding the Kerbol system further, or adding other star systems?"

"HarvesteR: We've certainly thought about it a lot, but right now, we feel it's more important to have more things to do in the current solar system, than to go on adding more places that in the end will just be more variations of the same terrain system."

Edited December 13, 2013 by Daisai

[Seret]

"HarvesteR: We've certainly thought about it a lot, but right now, we feel it's more important to have more things to do in the current solar system, than to go on adding more places that in the end will just be more variations of the same terrain system."

That sounds a lot like a "no" to me. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[chaos_forge]

The proponents of FTL seem to be functioning under the basic assumption that STL is somehow less fun than FTL. I for one think this is false. After all, most (if not all) of us would rather go to the effort of actually getting to Duna using orbital mechanics than just teleporting there. Why wouldn't the same argument apply to stars? STL, if it's well-done (such as a binary/more system), I think would be more fun than any proposed FTL system. Why would we want to add hypothetical science when the science we already have is so cool?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Only of completely separate stars and my previous comment only applied to interstellar travel. Besides as I said the FTL would be only useful after leaving Star/stars SoI (btw is travelling between stars in binary system and "interstellar" travel?)

You're traveling from one star's SOI to another's, so why wouldn't it? I think most people would be glad to simply have another star system to explore, regardless of whether it's part of a binary system or standalone. Also, just FYI, the closest star system to us is Alpha Centauri at 4.something ly.

You need n-body physics to implement binary star systems, if for no other reason then because there would be 2 SoIs - one for each star - influencing any body within reach.

You can still use a patched conics approximation. You simply would the be in the SOI of the star closest to you. The moon affects everything on Earth, but the patched conics approximation is still good enough. The same principle applies here.

Plus binary systems don't have planets or have them for a short time afaik.

There is no theoretical or practical reason that planets in a binary star system couldn't happen. Considering how hard it is to find exoplanets, it's not surprising that we haven't found any. This doesn't mean they're impossible, however.

EDIT: just found this on Wikipedia: "As of December 5, 2013, there are seventeen confirmed systems of circumbinary planets."

And no - You can't put them on rail unless you modify game engine to support non-elliptic paths because orbits can get seriously weird and quite frankly unpredictable in binary systems. Namely they change with every pass. So no rail.

Two stars orbiting each other is still a two-body system. So the orbits are still elliptical. In fact, it follows exactly the same rules as Jupiter orbiting the sun. So yes rail. I think you are confusing the three-body problem of a satellite orbiting two objects (very unpredictable) with the two-body problem of two objects with similar masses orbiting each other (completely solvable).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CERN already have anti-matter and anti-matter containment.

Sorry, just had to point out that this is false. The most antihydrogen that CERN can produce at any one time is about 50 atoms. For reference, a gram of hydrogen is 602,214,150,000,000,000,000,000 atoms.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yet everyone thinks that "Your a FTL supporter!?!?(gasp) Sacrilege! Heresy! You are witch! Burn her! Burn her! To the scales!, etc." . This is also the reason why we keep bringing up the topic: because we want to get it through your heads that ksp is a game, stl would make interstellar travel tedious, and that a properly implemented warpdrive would have its place in the game. But you don't listen to us, thinking we are a bunch of stupid, illiterate squeakers who have no idea about the implications of star travel and ftl, and in turn act like a bunch of squeakers to prove FTL is evil black magic

Let me quote myself:

I would argue that having Kerbol be part of a multiple-star system is more fun than adding FTL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any engine able to accelerate meaningful payload to 0.2C will make interplanetary travel easy (including beamed-sail), and orbital maneuver trivial.

This is probably the best argument against STL. However, I would argue that in sandbox it doesn't matter (you make all the rules anyways), and in career it's simply a matter of making it heavy/expensive enough to only be worth it for interstellar missions.

EDIT: Sorry for the super-long post, guys

Edited December 13, 2013 by chaos_forge

[Unfawkable]

Fun ? And who said that add an imaginary warp drive will add fun to a serious space program game?

The proponents of FTL seem to be functioning under the basic assumption that STL is somehow less fun than FTL. I for one think this is false.

Who put you guys in charge of the Fun-definition division? Fun is a matter of taste. Hence why there are opponents and proponents to FTL, with a difference, if you win and convince the devs, and we don't get FTL, no one gets to play with them, and if we win, we get to play with them, and you still don't have to do anything that discomforts you. To oppose FTL is to try to take away someone's fun just because.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Unfawkable

[chaos_forge]

UPDATE: KSP dev stream on KSP-TV just now, HarvesteR just said they don't want to add "sci-fi" technologies to KSP, and want to keep it as close to modern-day technologies as possible.

http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv

EDIT:

Who put you guys in charge of the Fun-definition division? Fun is a matter of taste. Hence why there are opponents and proponents to FTL, with a difference, if you win and convince the devs, and we don't get FTL, no one gets to play with them, and if we win, we get to play with them, and you still don't have to do anything that discomforts you. To oppose FTL is to try to take away someone's fun just because.

You have a good point. However, I think it can be reasonable to assume that either STL of FTL interstellar travel will be added, but not both. Therefore, asking for STL because we deem it to be more fun is not "to try to take away someone's fun just because"

Edited December 13, 2013 by chaos_forge

[Unfawkable]

UPDATE: KSP dev stream on KSP-TV just now, HarvesteR just said they don't want to add "sci-fi" technologies to KSP, and want to keep it as close to modern-day technologies as possible.

http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv

Oh well. Still doesn't disclude multiple star systems though, that's something.

[Unfawkable]

You have a good point. However, I think it can be reasonable to assume that either STL of FTL interstellar travel will be added, but not both. Therefore, asking for STL because we deem it to be more fun is not "to try to take away someone's fun just because"

Oh no, FTL without STL would suck. Doesn't suck currently the other way around though, but I'm still going to stay ''the more the merrier'' guy

Edit: Guess I should have edited my previous post instead. Oh well.

[Daisai]

That sounds a lot like a "no" to me. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

If you read it correctly they say that they will not add more solar systems before the current one is finished.

The reason why the word current is bold is because if you talk about the current solar system in this case you are talking about the propability of more systems in the future.

So its not a flat out "no" they will probably add more systems once the current one is completed.

It is a space game after all, so it would be stupid to not add more systems.

[Serratus]

You're traveling from one star's SOI to another's, so why wouldn't it? I think most people would be glad to simply have another star system to explore, regardless of whether it's part of a binary system or standalone. Also, just FYI, the closest star system to us is Alpha Centauri at 4.something ly.

I didn't say binary systems wouldn't be fun. Quite the opposite - I think it would be awesome! (I'm also very embarrassed for forgetting Alpha Centauri...)

You can still use a patched conics approximation. You simply would the be in the SOI of the star closest to you. The moon affects everything on Earth, but the patched conics approximation is still good enough. The same principle applies here.

That would throw all the realism out of the window. Say I fly between them into the barycentre. Normally I would be able to stop there because of equal and opposing grav. fields. With the approach You are proposing one of those stars would exert no gravity. Also planning orbits around one star without knowing what the real path will be would end you up crashing constantly into the other star.

There is no theoretical or practical reason that planets in a binary star system couldn't happen. Considering how hard it is to find exoplanets, it's not surprising that we haven't found any. This doesn't mean they're impossible, however.

EDIT: just found this on Wikipedia: "As of December 5, 2013, there are seventeen confirmed systems of circumbinary planets."

I never said they are impossible - only that they don't survive too long. Their orbit changes with every pass, and very quickly deteriorates either into one of the stars OR the planet in question is slingshot out of the system. Now I want to direct Your attention to the fact that celestial bodies in KSP can ONLY travel on elliptical orbits. S or P pattern orbits are not possible and neither is "loosing" celestial bodies by stars.

Two stars orbiting each other is still a two-body system. So the orbits are still elliptical. In fact, it follows exactly the same rules as Jupiter orbiting the sun. So yes rail. I think you are confusing the three-body problem of a satellite orbiting two objects (very unpredictable) with the two-body problem of two objects with similar masses orbiting each other (completely solvable).

Yes, two stars orbit each other as a 2-body system. But we're not discussing hypothetical situation here. We are interested in flying to them, and the moment ANYTHING enters binary star SoI, it becomes a 3-body system therefore it requires n-body physics to calculate paths. Therefore it's impossible in KSP. The only way we get a binary star in KSP is as background texture.

[chaos_forge]

I didn't say binary systems wouldn't be fun. Quite the opposite - I think it would be awesome! (I'm also very embarrassed for forgetting Alpha Centauri...)

-snip-

I think it depends on how far apart the two stars are. I certainly have more to add, but perhaps this conversation would be better suited for its own thread, instead of having us take over this thread?

[Serratus]

I think it depends on how far apart the two stars are. I certainly have more to add, but perhaps this conversation would be better suited for its own thread, instead of having us take over this thread?

I agree, there again, I won't start yet again binary-star discussion out of fear for forum mod team sanity Bottom line I think no one would complain if such stars would be added but it's an empty discussion until Unity starts supporting n-body physics.

[Kegereneku]

Apparently we launched a new STL vs FTL war.

Frankly you shouldn't bother with it because both points are moots.

The Devs are obviously not going to add FTL just as they said they wouldn't add redundant star system unless they finished the game.

At which point Reality will barely matter since STL make it just as impossible as FTL, so they'll likely go for something fun to play and that the game engine can handle.

To quote myself :

There's a lot of problems with trying to allow interstellar travel in KSP in a "classical way" :

- KSP's physic engine precision is finite, same as Timewarp.

- Any engine able to accelerate meaningful payload to 0.2C will make interplanetary travel easy (including beamed-sail), and orbital maneuver trivial.

Remember that interstellar travel is just an longer, unforgiving and more tedious interplanetary travel. So nothing wrong with a fun alternative.