Change our opinions about the Kraken drive

[goduranus]

Kraken drives are usually considered cheating, but I posit that it's an effort to challenge our current understanding of kerbal physics, mirroring real world attempts to do the same.

With real-world reactionless drive getting more and more coverage by the day, I propose we change our opinion about the kraken drive, and see it as a legitimate propulsion technology in the game.

On real reactionless drives:

Forum Post discussion real-world reactionless engines

On KSP reactionless drives:

Forum Post containing some pre-0.235 kraken drive crafts, some are broken by the recent patchs

I reverse engineered ComradeJenkins' ship and made a version that works with patch 0.24

Edited September 5, 2014 by goduranus

[Superfluous J]

My opinion on the Kraken Drive is the same as my opinion on anything in the game. If it's fun, do it. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you want to do it but can't, mod it in. If you don't want it but can't stop it, mod it away.

Kraken Drives seem to fall squarely into the "do it if you want and if you don't you can safely ignore it" category.

So I safely ignore it.

[Red Iron Crown]

With real-world reactionless drive getting more and more coverage by the day, I propose we change our opinion about the kraken drive, and see it as a legitimate propulsion technology in the game.

There is no real-world reactionless drive. The media sensationalism around the emdrive is jumping the gun, more testing and experimentation is required before anything can be said (see also: every cold fusion proposal ever).

That said, I'm with 5thHorseman on this, if you have fun with it by all means use it.

[TimberWolffe]

I don't get negativity about them. I can achieve FTL to escape the sun's orbit in under a minute through accidental discovery of a somewhat reliable kraken drive. I'd like to see your fancy 'mainsail' engines do that

[Frozen_Heart]

If its fun then use it. Its not exactly a bug you can do by accident easily.

[magnemoe]

I don't get negativity about them. I can achieve FTL to escape the sun's orbit in under a minute through accidental discovery of a somewhat reliable kraken drive. I'd like to see your fancy 'mainsail' engines do that

Yes, and even if reactionles drives are possible they might not fit in KSP.

Lots of engine types like the orion nuclear pulse engine but also stuff like an efficient fusion engine would make one month trips to Jool trivial.

[Sky_walker]

With real-world reactionless drive getting more and more coverage by the day

Non-existent reactionless drive.

As far as scientific world is concerned - no such thing have been build or successfully tested.

Latest NASA tests (showing "output" an order of magnitude weaker than the one from Chinese "tests") are dubious to say at least, highly unprofessional to say more (and so was NASA behaviour on a case - instead of clear denial statement to the media ecstasy they keep silent).

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Superfluous J]

so was NASA behaviour on a case - instead of clear denial statement to the media ecstasy they keep silent.

Scientists don't categorically deny the existence of something they're testing for until they've actually got some data saying that it doesn't exist. That would be bad science.

The media can hoot and holler all they want, NASA's scientific branches should stick to confirming facts, denying falsehoods, and tentatively explaining what their uncorroborated data has shown.

Which is exactly what they've been doing.

[problemecium]

Yeeeahhhh, about that "reactionless drive."

Correct me if I'm wrong (briefly so I don't derail the thread ^^; ), but based on what I've read the Quantum Vacuum thruster isn't reactionless, it just doesn't consume fuel. You know, like that amazing engine that we use on planes that doesn't need fuel to run - a propeller. The QVPT is basically a space propeller, with an absurd "ISP" and practically no thrust because, well, propellers don't work too well in space xP

[Sky_walker]

Scientists don't categorically deny the existence of something they're testing for until they've actually got some data saying that it doesn't exist. That would be bad science.

Press says that NASA discovered something it did not. Obvious good reaction would be to state the facts, instead of let the BS float.

[Liowen]

My opinion on the Kraken Drive is the same as my opinion on anything in the game. If it's fun, do it. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you want to do it but can't, mod it in. If you don't want it but can't stop it, mod it away.

Kraken Drives seem to fall squarely into the "do it if you want and if you don't you can safely ignore it" category.

So I safely ignore it.

I have to agree with this statement. If you enjoy doing something in the game then do it, or mod it so you can. Likewise if you do not enjoy something like this don't worry about, or if it is an in game feature you do not like...like the aerodynamic model..... then use a mod to make it more fun for you. At the end of the day if you are not having fun with a game then what is the point in playing it?

[Superfluous J]

Press says that NASA discovered something it did not. Obvious good reaction would be to state the facts, instead of let the BS float.

No. Because the very next headline would be "NASA lied about discovering reactionless drive. What ELSE are they lying about?"

[merendel]

I categorize all the kraken drives as glitches in the physics engine. I have no problems with someone, or even myself useing them if the mood strikes but I wont call them legit. Kerbal on a ladder or landing leg gimics are just phantom forces from the physics engine getting confused and are not an actual "Drive", its just what folks call that particular exploit of the system.

[Sky_walker]

No. Because the very next headline would be "NASA lied about discovering reactionless drive. What ELSE are they lying about?"

I'm not talking about them just coming out and saying "there is no reactionless drive" but rather properly present the situation.

Besides - it's meaningless what you or I think, NASA already made up their mind and they choose to keep silent only giving food to stuff like this topic. Now people genuinely think that NASA did discover reactionless drive, so just wait for the reactions when the proper results come out and it's proven beyond doubt that this whole drive doesn't have any right to work. Then you'll have headlines.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sky_walker

[MarvinKitFox]

I don't get negativity about them. I can achieve FTL to escape the sun's orbit in under a minute through accidental discovery of a somewhat reliable kraken drive. I'd like to see your fancy 'mainsail' engines do that

So? That supposed to impress?

Using another bug, called "hyperedit", I can achieve the same in 2 seconds.

Its just as much fun, to.. a.k.a. zero.

[SunChaser]

I can't pretend to understand all of the intricate ideas behind the 'EmDrive' but the consensus of the scientific community is that as the engine has not been supported by a single peer-reviewed paper, it should be treated as an interesting hypothesis. The NASA Eagleworks Laboratory has tested similar engines with limited success--with a fraction the power and thus thrust as the Chinese tests. It's not entirely impossible, but any 'engine' that operates on relativistic principles we may not fully understand will likely not see widespread use for decades to come.

As far as KSP 'Kraken Drives' go, I'm with everybody else. If you like building stuff that might break your game but let you travel at several times the speed of light, then do it. From what I've heard, the Kraken bug is almost non-existent nowadays (assuming you don't go out of your way to find it with struts and girders and so forth) so it's not like it urgently needs to be patched out.

[Kasuha]

My stance regarding EmDrive and its cousin Canae drive is that regardless whether theory behind them is flawed or not, if there are functional samples we should test them and if they work we should figure out why do they work. So far majority of criticism of EmDrive I have seen comes from people who took an a priori position that it does not work and now they defend that position. Note that creators of EmDrive do not claim it is reactionless drive.

Whether or not the NASA test was unprofessional is matter of opinion. My view is that if it was performed by people who had no personal interest on the outcome, it can be trusted. If you want to make up your own opinion, here is the test report. In my opinion, tests in vacuum should be performed but personally I don't expect any significantly different results.

Kraken drive, on the other hand, is a different story. As long as KSP is played as single player, everyone makes their own rules. Personally I am trying to play the game the way it was meant to be played by developers and since they did not intend to use that mechanic for propulsion I am avoiding it for any purpose but for testing out of curiosity. But I don't see any problem if someone else decides to run his space program based solely on that technology. The only practical downside is that it may stop working with any future release.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Kasuha

[goduranus]

That "space propeller" analogy for pushing quantum fluctuations is interesting

[cantab]

Regarding glitch-based propulsion, I shan't diminish the achievement. Creating a reliable kraken drive, a good infiniglider, even a decent ladderlifter isn't trivial. However since they are glitch-abusing they can never be seen as fully legitimate. Being able to climb into orbit from Eve doesn't make an "Eve SSTO" possible, not in the normal sense meant by Eve SSTO, and infinigliders are rightly excluded from most aircraft challenges.

[Superfluous J]

I'm not talking about them just coming out and saying "there is no reactionless drive" but rather properly present the situation.

I won't pretend to know the entire situation as I tend to ignore flashy science reporting and just take things at face value. However, isn't this what NASA did? "Hey we found this thing. It doesn't match what we expect. We're testing."

Should they just repeat that in another press conference, over and over, and let the press blow it out of proportion each time? I personally wouldn't bother, and don't blame them for not bothering either.

What I'm getting at is there is NOTHING that they could say to keep people from praising them for discovering the snake oil drive they didn't discover. And there's nothing they can do from people chastising them for selling us snake oil when what they really had was an uncalibrated device, which they warned us was the far bigger possibility at the time they revealed what they had.

[Stevie_D]

Considering NASA believed they were building a white elephant *on purpose* to prove it wouldn't work, then pooped themselves when they turned on both versions to find they did (both the one they made to work, AND the one they made to fail on purpose), calling them fantasy or fictional is like calling a nuclear engine fantasy or fiction. The science behind them has been *proven* to work. The ONLY question that remains on them is can the technique be adapted to be made *practical* for actual usage? Or is it a novelty thing like a potatoe battery? We all know a nuclear engine could be made and used, it's just a case of the political willpower never made it take off. Whilst im not claiming the same for the Q-drive. The fact is, it's theory -has- been proven.

The more skeptical people here would have probably also said landing a 1 ton rover on mars using 4 landing rockets to make it hover above the surface before dropping it was a ludicrous idea that NASA would never do...until they did it. Im not saying everything is possible. What i am saying is, this ~isnt~ science fiction when it's theory has actually been proven in written scientific journals by two ~seperate~ reputable groups of scientists.

The only question that hangs over it in a major way, as i say, is if it could ever be adaptable to serve a decent purpose.

[Red Iron Crown]

One anomalous test result does not an established theory make. Nor is "proof" even a thing in science. More testing is required to determine whether some flaw with the test apparatus was the cause or if they're really on to something new.

[Thomas988]

I wouldn't use a kraken drive. A: I can't even make one that works. B: I see it as cheaty.

I don't like abusing the game's physics to do unrealistic things. Sure, reactionless engines may be possible in real life, but I don't they'll work by pushing landing gear into a metal plate. I'm about realism. But that's just my opinion.

[r_rolo1]

Well, about the fuzz on the Emdrive, my personal opinion is that we either have have a flukey (most of you might not remember the cold fusion debacle ... but i do ) , or it might simply be a misunderstanding of our part of how the physics of the issue work. if you want a example, just see the misunderstandings there were about space flight feasablity before Oberth effect was theorized ...and yet, there was nothing preventing no one in between Newton and Oberth timewise to get to the same result ( the math required is nothing above high school one and you could get there easily with 17th century math if so inclined ). People just didn't got there ...

Edited September 6, 2014 by r_rolo1