Do you think the consensus of space travel as being good has changed because of this game?

[samstarman5]

If we can see more games like KSP which has become popular without being about guns and soldiers, that would definitely garner a much bigger impact. As has been shared, KSP has influenced a lot of people, but that will come down the road and not right now. However, enthusiasm about space travel is up there, with private firms entering the field. There is even one big business already making steps to start asteroid prospecting. So, while KSP may not be changing overall public opinion today, it is definitely affecting how it will go tomorrow. I guess you could say KSP is helping to lay the foundation.

[Northstar1989]

As a general commentary on the subject, I do not see humanity "traveling" in space beyond that of the Moon or maybe once or twice to Mars. The future of space travel for humanity will be dominated by robots because it's easier, cheaper and a lot less risky. Putting a human body into space complicates everything and there's so many issues that have to be address like supplies, body functions, mental health, radiation, mistakes, etc.

Robots are great for specialized exploration, but the *REAL* value of putting humans into space (and indeed, on other planets/moons) is to learn more about what will be required when we eventually attempt to colonize these celestial bodies...

Which, just so you know, *WILL* happen someday. Space-X is already talking about selling $500,000 one-way tickets to Mars onboard their Mars Colonial Transported within 30-40 years (not actually an unrealistic goal, if they succeed in their development of reusables and Full Flow Staged Combustion engines), which is a price many people would be willing to pay. Heck, even if the cost tripled or quadruples, I think many people would be willing to pay $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 for the chance to become one of the first settlers of Mars...

And Space-X and reusables/Full Flow Staged Combustion is *NOT* the best we can do with today's technology...

- A United Kingdom firm is working on SKYLON- a spaceplane which would be powered by the SABRE engine and be capable of reaching orbit for a fraction of the cost of even a Space-X reusable launch (estimated costs are $500/kg, as compared to current launch costs of $10,000/kg). The engine concept/design has already been validated, the pre-cooler (the most difficult part of the design) successfully built and tested... I can see no reason SKYLON should fail to actualize if the British continue to fund it...

- The company Escape Dynamics is working on a Microwave Beamed Power spaceplane. The high ISP of Microwave Thermal Rockets (850-1000s when using LH2 as propellant) without any of the heavy reactors, safety risks, or measly thrust (Microwave Thermal Thrusters are capable of TWR's 2-3 times greater than that of any current chemical rocket engine when supplied with enough beamed-power, in fact) of Nuclear Thermal Rockets means that spaceplanes suddenly become a very real possibility.

Spaceplanes are the *preferred* way to reach orbit with Microwave Thermal Rocketry, as aircraft can lift off the runway with a TWR less than 1 (and climb to higher altitudes, where the Microwave Thermal Thruster is subject to less atmospheric-compression of the exhaust stream and Thrust increases...) and can coat their ENTIRE underbellies with Silicon Carbide, which is highly-absorbant to microwaves (when built to the right thicknesses relative to the wavelength- similar technology to with solar panels) and heats up as a result when microwaves are pointed at it- allowing the thermal thrusters to operate... This means the microwave beam doesn't have to be as focused, as it has a larger target...

Additionally, the Microwave Beamed Power can also be used to run Thermal Turbojets (relying on a Microwave Thermal Receiver instead of a nuclear reactor for the heat-source) for the initial part of the spaceplane's ascent- and the same Microwave-powered Thermal Turbojet technology has potential military and civilian applications for high-endurance aircraft... (super high-endurance aircraft may make for cheaper communications platforms than communications satellites, at current launch costs, according to some studies...) The Microwave Beamed Power has ANOTHER application still in Microwave-electric propulsion: that is beaming power to spacecraft in orbit to allow them to run electric thrusters at VERY high power-levels (and thus thrust levels) without any heavy nuclear reactor or massive solar panels to weigh them down (substantial radiator mass is still required to dissipate the excess heat from thruster-inefficiency, however...) making manned Mars travel using electric propulsion feasible...

- The "Star Tram" proposal and similarly-named company (Star Tram Inc.) developed a proposal for an electromagnetic mass-driver for spacecraft assisted-launches, utilizing exactly the same basic technology as is used in Maglev trains (only scaled up in power-levels). There are some substantial engineering challenges that have to be overcome first for the versions with suborbital exit-velocities from the mass driver to become feasible, but there is *absolutely no reason* a scaled-down version couldn't be used to give rockets a few hundred m/s extra Delta-V right out of the launch tube... (the technology should actually be easier/cheaper per m/s at lower exit velocities, and less of it will get eaten up by aerodynamic drag in the lower atmosphere...)

Due to the Rocket Equation, the most expensive 100 m/s is the FIRST 100 m/s (both in terms of fuel and thrust), and the second 100 m/s is a bit cheaper, and so-on and so-forth. Thus, anything that can give a rocket a free boost off the ground can bring down the cost orbit substantially...

Among the benefits: your rocket not only has to meet a slightly smaller Delta-V budget to reach orbit, it can also start off with a TWR < 1, so long as the TWR climbs to 1 (from fuel-consumption and decreasing atmospheric pressure- in real life Thrust climbs with rising ISP due to decreasing atmospheric pressure, rather than fuel consumption falling with rising ISP like in Kerbal Space Program... The mod RealFuels already simulates this effect in KSP, though...) before all of the vertical velocity imparted by the mass driver has been eaten away by drag and gravity... In fact, I've already used mass drivers for *precisely* this reason in KSP (a slight Delta-V benefit, and a reduction in the liftoff TWR required) with my recently pre-released Mass Driver mod, which you can find a link to here and in my signature... Demonstration pictures of using the Mass Driver for a small (300-400 m/s) vertical boost are on the first post (the TWR of the night-launched rocket barely exceeded 1, and I've used TWR's of less than 1 at sea-level before as well...)

Mass Drivers also mix *very* well with Microwave Thermal Rockets and Space-X style reusables (and ideally, both in one design). Because a Microwave Thermal Rocket (assuming it's not initially powered by a Thermal Turbojet) still has to lift all its propellant mass it needs to get to orbit, it is still subject to the Rocket Equation, and still benefits from the Delta-V savings. More importantly, the propellant of choice for a Microwave Thermal Rocket- Liquid Hydrogen (because of its very high ISP) is also subject to very high atmospheric-compressibility: meaning you lose a LOT of thrust in the densest part of the atmosphere, and need a lot more beamed-power just to get a rocket of the same mass off the launch pad than if the atmosphere were thinner... With a Mass Driver, you can boost the Microwave Thermal Rocket up above the thickest part of the atmosphere, and by the time its TWR needs to reach/exceed 1 in order to continue to climb, the air should be a good bit thinner- and you will need less beamed-power to do it... (with Microwave Thermal Rockets, the amount of beamed-power required, rather than the thruster itself- which is *VERY* cheap, working models have been built for less than a hundred dollars- is the main cost-driver...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited January 29, 2015 by Northstar1989

[metl]

While we may not see widespread space colonization by the end of the century, to say it will never happen is almost as much of a folly as those that say space exploration in general is a pointless waste of time. Necessity breeds invention, and this rock won't last forever.

[Tripzter]

The only thing this game has done is make me want it more. I can only dream of the day when i'll be able to get on a space ship and zoom around the solar system.. maybe even the galaxy.

[metl]

The only thing this game has done is make me want it more. I can only dream of the day when i'll be able to get on a space ship and zoom around the solar system.. maybe even the galaxy.

I'm with you there. I know I will never get that chance, but oh man wouldn't it be so wonderful?

[razark]

Putting a human body into space complicates everything and there's so many issues that have to be address like supplies, body functions, mental health, radiation, mistakes, etc.

It makes one wonder that we ever managed to cross oceans, reach to poles, or climb mountains.

[Northstar1989]

While we may not see widespread space colonization by the end of the century, to say it will never happen is almost as much of a folly as those that say space exploration in general is a pointless waste of time. Necessity breeds invention, and this rock won't last forever.

Oh, but we COULD colonize *MARS* well before the end of the century. See my threads on the following subjects to lean more about some of the technologies and strategies that could make it affordable, and don't require ANY major scientific breakthroughs (though that's not to say it will be EASY...)

Next-Generation Launch Technologies (because getting to orbit is currently the most expensive part of getting anywhere from Earth...)

Cycler Ships (Buzz Aldrin first came up with the idea, for crying out loud! It's nothing but a ship in a special orbit- no new rocketry technology required- although I do point out some rather magnificent ways it could synergize with other new technologies...)

Propulsive Fluid Accumulators (Because when you have unlimited reaction-mass in orbit, your imagination's the limit. Keep in mind you still need to launch empty fuel tanks, and if you choose to scoop Nitrogen, rather than Oxygen, you need a way to use it as propellant- either thermal rocketry, or electric propulsion... Which, in practicality, means nuclear rockets or Microwave Beamed Power...)

Big Dumb Boosters (Thread of the Month back in July. This is a real-life strategy for rocket-design, rather than a technology. The concept is to build bigger, cheaper reliable rockets with lower payload-fractions or, alternatively, cheaper rockets with high failure-rates for use launching the cheaper payloads such as fuel and life-support consumables...)

Regards,

Northstar

[sedativechunk]

Interesting post, OP. I know we all love this game so much and learned a lot from it, but at the end of the day, it's JUST a video game. It is not 100% accurate to actual orbital concepts and it is built in a way that you don't quiet learn the math behind space travel as much as the basic mechanics. BUT... it does make somewhat of an impact.

Here is how I think KSP is impacting real space travel:

1) inspiring kids (13 and under) - this game is inspiring kids today that could potentially pursue a career in engineering, space, and science. Remember, kids today maybe the first ones to walk on Mars and beyond. Imagine the first human to ever walk on Mars in 20-30 years could VERY much be there because they played KSP when they were growing up and were inspired to pursue the real thing. This would be such a huge, momentous moment for the video game community as well as humanity for the first steps on another world. This is the number one reason why I play and support this game, and I also show it to kids I know.

2) It is inspiring undergrads and high school students - I am a college IT student myself and I am sure there are people in the aerospace division that love this game and got inspired by it.

3) Media - I made a post several weeks ago, I caught NASA using a clip of KSP in one of it's promotional videos. KSP is being used as a go-to simulator for quick screenshots and grabs of spaceflight tech. Not a bad victory for KSP at all.

4) Spacecraft Design - People that played this game both young and old in the industry may be inspired to use some of it's design. From actual rocket parts/designs to the very convenient nav ball, I can see parts of this game being used in real life application. Simple spacecraft design works the best.

5) Educational use - some education institutions use KSP as a learning tool.

What this game is NOT doing or ever going to do:

1) Become a Simulator - KSP is not a "simulator" perse, it is a game made for fun and it does not match real world physics and Kerbin is not "Earth". With that being said, real simulators may be very loosely based off of it.

2) Teach real world space flight - as I said above, this game does the basics but there is a lot more to orbital mechanics. This game does not teach the math or science behind chemical or nuclear rockets. Actually, this game is EXTREMELY ELEMENTARY compared to real rocket science. Real life is a different ball game. It takes thousands of brilliant engineers working thousands of man hours collectively to build spacecrafts and hundreds of millions of dollars. Only the best of the best, extremely qualified professionals work for NASA. They are even strict on janitorial jobs.

That's about it! Some of you others made some great points as well about this game not making that big of an impact yet. KSP is a niche appeal; it appeals to people who love aeronautics and space flight. If you are not a fan of that genre of video game, you probably won't like KSP. You probably won't like it either if you are not a hardcore gamer. KSP is an indie game and doesn't quite have the theatrics as big budget mainstream games.

[hansen]

Oh, but we COULD colonize *MARS* well before the end of the century. See my threads on the following subjects to lean more about some of the technologies and strategies that could make it affordable, and don't require ANY major scientific breakthroughs (though that's not to say it will be EASY...)

Next-Generation Launch Technologies (because getting to orbit is currently the most expensive part of getting anywhere from Earth...)

Cycler Ships (Buzz Aldrin first came up with the idea, for crying out loud! It's nothing but a ship in a special orbit- no new rocketry technology required- although I do point out some rather magnificent ways it could synergize with other new technologies...)

Propulsive Fluid Accumulators (Because when you have unlimited reaction-mass in orbit, your imagination's the limit. Keep in mind you still need to launch empty fuel tanks, and if you choose to scoop Nitrogen, rather than Oxygen, you need a way to use it as propellant- either thermal rocketry, or electric propulsion... Which, in practicality, means nuclear rockets or Microwave Beamed Power...)

Big Dumb Boosters (Thread of the Month back in July. This is a real-life strategy for rocket-design, rather than a technology. The concept is to build bigger, cheaper reliable rockets with lower payload-fractions or, alternatively, cheaper rockets with high failure-rates for use launching the cheaper payloads such as fuel and life-support consumables...)

Regards,

Northstar

Well, it is exactly this technological and engineering focus that ksp teaches to its players. But why should someone decide to go to Mars, what is the purpose of such an endeavour? Spend the rest of your life in tiny habitable modules surrounded by a hostile environment? To travel a few steps in the solar system is one thing. To make something reasonable out of it is the problem. So far I don't see any realisic ideas about colonization that go beyond "lets bring a bunch of people to the surface of a another celestial body and see what happens". Terraforming and such are way beyond technological capabilities and even if it were possible this would need too much time to make a impact (and significance for present societies).

[Northstar1989]

Well, it is exactly this technological and engineering focus that ksp teaches to its players. But why should someone decide to go to Mars, what is the purpose of such an endeavour? Spend the rest of your life in tiny habitable modules surrounded by a hostile environment? To travel a few steps in the solar system is one thing. To make something reasonable out of it is the problem. So far I don't see any realisic ideas about colonization that go beyond "lets bring a bunch of people to the surface of a another celestial body and see what happens". Terraforming and such are way beyond technological capabilities and even if it were possible this would need too much time to make a impact (and significance for present societies).

You don't need terraforming to live on another planet. Most likely, the early Mars colonists (and perhaps all inhabitants of that planet ever) will live in pressurized domes and hab modules... They will spend their time expanding those habitats, prospecting/mining resources, manufacturing things, providing goods and services to the colonial population, building+working greenhouse modules, and researching exciting new scientific discoveries- just like on Earth... They won't be lacking for things to do...

Life expectancies might be significantly shorter (due to higher radiation levels and greatly increased risks of cancer), but that will just provide more incentive for scientists on Mars to collaborate with teams on Earth in working on a cure for cancer- a discovery that would have ENORMOUS economic benefits hear on Earth as well!

The main economic benefit of off-world colonies to Earth will NEVER be resources or manufactured goods (excluding, possibly, spacecraft like Cycler Ships, fuel tankers, and orbital tugs...) It will be intellectual property (books, movies, scientific discoveries) and corresponding tax-revenue to the Earth countries those colonies remain loyal to (as long as that lasts- or better yet colonies could be a United Nations project that splits the revenues equitably and makes sure to provide representation and government services to the colonies it return...) and in the benefits of that intellectual property (especially scientific/technological discoveries) to populations here on Earth... A self-sufficient colony provides this intellectual property at ZERO continuing costs to nations here on Earth- aside from any government services they elect to provide on Mars in exchange for the tax revenue...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I'm trained as a biologist in real life, and I can assure you we *WILL* cure cancer someday- one of the greatest obstacles is just understanding how the disease works in the first place. See, for instance, the Cancer Stem Cell theory, which as a biologist in the field who studied cancer and stem cells extensively, I can assure you is one of the *MAJOR* breakthroughs that is going to change how we treat/cure cancer... (It's nice that the Wikipedia article on the subject finally has a decent introduction- for the longest time it was a very low-quality article that didn't do the subject justice...)

Edited January 29, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Teoman2]

This game has changed my entire way of life...

These are the stages of the jobs i wanted in my life

1. Fireman (lol)

2. Artist

3. Architect

4. Artist

5. Mining Engineer

6. Mechanical Engineer

7. Aerospace Engineer (6 months after playing KSP)

I love rockets, planes, space shuttles, and stations. It just boggles my mind how huge space is, and how little we are, how little we've done, and how much to do.

This game has change my life goals. Thanks Squad

[Pipcard]

Unlike a lot of people here, it was Orbiter that made me want to become an aerospace engineer, but I appreciate KSP for making spaceflight concepts more accessible.

[hansen]

You don't need terraforming to live on another planet. Most likely, the early Mars colonists (and perhaps all inhabitants of that planet ever) will live in pressurized domes and hab modules... They will spend their time expanding those habitats, prospecting/mining resources, manufacturing things, providing goods and services to the colonial population, building+working greenhouse modules, and researching exciting new scientific discoveries- just like on Earth... They won't be lacking for things to do...

Life expectancies might be significantly shorter (due to higher radiation levels and greatly increased risks of cancer), but that will just provide more incentive for scientists on Mars to collaborate with teams on Earth in working on a cure for cancer- a discovery that would have ENORMOUS economic benefits hear on Earth as well!

The main economic benefit of off-world colonies to Earth will NEVER be resources or manufactured goods (excluding, possibly, spacecraft like Cycler Ships, fuel tankers, and orbital tugs...) It will be intellectual property (books, movies, scientific discoveries) and corresponding tax-revenue to the Earth countries those colonies remain loyal to (as long as that lasts- or better yet colonies could be a United Nations project that splits the revenues equitably and makes sure to provide representation and government services to the colonies it return...) and in the benefits of that intellectual property (especially scientific/technological discoveries) to populations here on Earth... A self-sufficient colony provides this intellectual property at ZERO continuing costs to nations here on Earth- aside from any government services they elect to provide on Mars in exchange for the tax revenue...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I'm trained as a biologist in real life, and I can assure you we *WILL* cure cancer someday- one of the greatest obstacles is just understanding how the disease works in the first place. See, for instance, the Cancer Stem Cell theory, which as a biologist in the field who studied cancer and stem cells extensively, I can assure you is one of the *MAJOR* breakthroughs that is going to change how we treat/cure cancer... (It's nice that the Wikipedia article on the subject finally has a decent introduction- for the longest time it was a very low-quality article that didn't do the subject justice...)

Beyond the technical capabilities making it possible to travel through space the ideas about the outcome of manned interplanetary missions seem too far fetched for me. Well, I am a social anthropologist and historian interested in science and technology studies. Please forgive me identifying the discourse on space exploration with religious practices. Shooting humans in the sky and sacrifice them for intellectual and scientific outcomes that nobody can pinpoint reminds me of belief and not scientific rationality (if this even exists). Even if there might be insights about certain illnesses, the question why you are not simulating these conditions in a lab accompanied by similar ethical dilemmas persists.

How I said, KSP shows exactly this. Land on a planet and what do you do then? How should a satisfying way of life can be possible in space? How do even well trained and psychical strong humans deal with tiny habitats surrounded by deadly conditions? What happens if they go crazy?

"Interstellar" did adress this social aspect of manned space exploration way deeper than ksp probably ever will. a good read btw.: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-holy-cosmos-the-new-religion-of-space-exploration/255136/

[m4v]

Necessity breeds invention, and this rock won't last forever.

This rock is the best one the solar system has for us, and will last long enough. I'm all good with space exploration, but I don't share this view that we have to rush into space because our survival depends on that. Specially when the things threatening our survival are local to Earth that doesn't get solved by looking away and escaping to space.

[Scarecrow88]

I think the majority of people who play KSP already have an interest in science/space etc., so it's not likely to have any effect on their views on space travel or exploration. As for the vast majority of the population that don't play KSP, I suspect that most of them don't even know it exists, so it's hardly likely to influence their thinking towards space exploration. So, on the whole, I have to conclude that KSP won't have any effect on what people think about space travel.

[Northstar1989]

Beyond the technical capabilities making it possible to travel through space the ideas about the outcome of manned interplanetary missions seem too far fetched for me. Well, I am a social anthropologist and historian interested in science and technology studies. Please forgive me identifying the discourse on space exploration with religious practices. Shooting humans in the sky and sacrifice them for intellectual and scientific outcomes that nobody can pinpoint reminds me of belief and not scientific rationality (if this even exists). Even if there might be insights about certain illnesses, the question why you are not simulating these conditions in a lab accompanied by similar ethical dilemmas persists.

How I said, KSP shows exactly this. Land on a planet and what do you do then? How should a satisfying way of life can be possible in space? How do even well trained and psychical strong humans deal with tiny habitats surrounded by deadly conditions? What happens if they go crazy?

"Interstellar" did adress this social aspect of manned space exploration way deeper than ksp probably ever will. a good read btw.: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-holy-cosmos-the-new-religion-of-space-exploration/255136/

Your response had be scratching my head in all kinds of ways (and not because it was that thought-provoking!) How could you possible compare space exploration (to some, the antithesis of religion) with religion?

Space exploration is NOTHING like religion. Rather than pray that things work out and taking it on faith, we try to plan for every possible eventuality. Rather than seeking to gain perspective by looking inwards, we seek to gain perspective by looking outwards (or heading outwards, and then looking back inwards- aka. Earth from the Moon...) Rather than seeking the blessings of a mysterious and loving being, we seek the blessings of cold, hard, unloving science. I'm a scientists in real life, and honestly I have no idea how you Science & Technology Studies types can come up with such obscure/crazy ideas about the nature of science... (I've taken courses on the subject, by the way, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance...)

There's nothing vague or undefinable about the benefits we gain from space exploration. The benefits to our technological progress have been very clear and concrete. And the physical benefits of mining some of the rare resources only found in space (Iridium and Platinum-group rich asteroids containing more of these elements than mined in all of human history, Helium-3 on the Moon, etc.) Not to mention the more mundane benefits of large-scale solar-farming if we can reduce launch-costs enough to make it competitive with current power-generation strategies (we'd need at least a 1000x fold reduction in costs for that, but I do believe we'll get there some day...)

Space is the future. Space is God's promise to mankind (if you believe in Christianity/Judaism- there are certain passages that can be interpreted to mean the stars are our destiny...) Space holds more possibilities than you can imagine. And the sooner we get out there, the more the benefits of off-world colonization will snowball into even greater benefits still... If we start today, we might start colonizing Mars in 50 years instead of 100, and the benefits of that 400 years from now are too great to even imagine...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Colonizing Mars isn't as crazy as it sounds. Human beings have lived in submarines and on ships for years at a time without going crazy- and even worse conditions were endured back in the Age of Sail. Do you think being limited to only a small pressurized habitat where you can go without an EVA suit on (remember, you can always still go and explore outside) would be that much worse than being in a tiny, smelly tin can deep underwater? At least on Mars you will have living/growing plants to attend to inside greenhouses... And we can afford/achieve it too: remember what I said about Space-X planning on selling $500,000 one-way tickets to Mars in 30-40 years...

Edited January 31, 2015 by Northstar1989

[WOODY01]

Any form of media has a varying degree of effect on people.

KSP to some will just be a game they had a little fun with, or stopped playing out of frustration of the relatively steep learning curve.

To others, particulairy the younger players, it may ignite their imagination drive them to learn more, become a passionate about aerospace and space exploration, and influence their lives.

For KSP to have an influence it needs to inspire people to make movies, write books, other games, advocate further exploration and funding, etc.

A quick example:

Bram Stoker grewup listening to Irish Folklore which contains tales of certain evil creatures, some drank blood.

He got interested in Egyptology, alchemy, astral projections and the like. Some suggest because he was a sickly child and may have been exposed to some non-scientific attempts at a cure.

He eventually wrote a book about a vampire.

His influence can still been seen today in many works roughly 110 years later.

KSP may not have an direct influence but it may put some on the path that leads to taking humanity to other planets in our system and beyond.

[cantab]

Even if there might be insights about certain illnesses, the question why you are not simulating these conditions in a lab accompanied by similar ethical dilemmas persists.

Because we can't. We can't create microgravity for an extended period without going at least into Earth orbit.

[Torquemadus]

I'm looking forward to 1.0 and ISRU. Once I've got ISRU, I can build my own version of

in KSP!

The idea that humans cannot or should not expand into space is a holdover from geocentrism and should have been discarded long ago.

[Denks]

I would guess that those that do play this game have a greater awareness and probably support it more. But as for the general public, not really.