Horus Lupercal said:
You missed the subtle difference in definitions.
Probably because of my lack of comprehension of the English language
Horus Lupercal said:
Just because it isn’t difficult for me to lift that mass, doesn’t take that mass necessary. Necessary mass is whatever I need to complete a task, be that 20 or 2000 tons, whatever. However, if by including an astronaut (or multiples of) increases that mass (even by a ton or 5 grams) and they provide no extra functionality, then that is unnecessary mass.
That mass is definitively necessary, and as you can see, many people (myself included, obviously) want to have these tiny bubbleheaded beings, or whatever you want to call them, even if you claim they will have no functionality (and I still think they will come in handy) cause they enhance your gaming experience. I’m sure people wants them mostly to have fun with them, but I am also sure that there are people that will do cool things with their astronauts, things neither you or I can imagine right now.
Horus Lupercal said:
EVA repairs. Already mentioned this. Requires a damage system to be implemented.
“Transcending between 17 200 characters and 24 800 characters typed…. the very same arguments, eternally retold…”
Oh, dear gosh, again the same. How many times I’m gonna have to explain this to him? There’s a parody that fits the situation. There are probably better parodies, but that was the first one I came up with.
You definitively have NO imagination at all.
Soooooo… On the topic, one more time:
Noooooo… We don’t need a damage system to be implemented. The same way we pretend we make space station modules with fairings, interstages, filled fuel tank, why I cannot pretend my astronauts are repairing the cursed satellite even if there is no damage system implemented?
That is what I’ve been trying to say all along… hence why I’ve said things like: SFS is game, not a life style. Things that were either misunderstood or gone with the wind.
Horus Lupercal said:
Set free trapped unmanned vehicles. Can be done remotely. Requires rocks or something to trap your rovers
Surely can be done remotely, but why not do it with people?
Also, SFS may not have rocks, but has craters, and from its first release to its future last update, people has and will continue to, breaking and flipping their rovers on any crater they find. Not sure you, but I certainly have this problem, I use to quicksave every 20 seconds of rovering.
So, let me use one your arguments against you: your main argument in all this debate is that there is no actual difference between using probes and using people (I still think there is), so according to that you can either chose between probes and astronauts and will still be the same, right? Then what is the problem with doing it with people?? You want to do it with probes, I want to do it with people.
Horus Lupercal said:
Taking science reading, like surface samples, atmospheric tests, seismological measures. Already been through these as well
Is there no difference between do this with probes, and do it with astronauts? Fine, I’ll do it with astronauts.
Horus Lupercal said:
Performing other kind of experiments (things that require human supervision). Like…? What experiments can only a human do that a machine can’t? Taste testing rocks? (An actual thing)
Very funny… but no.
Stuff that will require a quick and on-site response and the expertise of an actual mastermind in the matter to make decisions. If you want to do something like this on a faraway planet, you’re gonna need a guy to be there to do this job, you can’t do it with an Earth-controlled machine, cause your experiment will fail/explode if you have to wait hours for the message and response to travel through space.
Better now?
Horus Lupercal said:
So a QRF based in the local area? Well that negates your ‘hours to get a signal response’. If the QRF is on the same planet, then the un-manned QRF could be on the same planet and its controllers can also be on the same planet. And as rescues go, wouldn’t be better using unmanned machines going into dangerous areas at short notice than human crews.
Are you using this argument to prove, once again, that astronauts are useless?
If so, you’ve made one little mistake:
Horus Lupercal said:
If the QRF is on the same planet, then the un-manned QRF could be on the same planet and its controllers can also be on the same planet.
You said that you don’t need astronauts on site, because you have an un-manned QRF on site, whose astronaut controllers are also, on site?
There’s small contradiction there, unless there’s a ‘subtle difference’ I’m not seeing. You’ve just said yourself that you need astronaut controllers on site. So, basically, you’ve given yourself a reason to send your astronauts to space.
Jokes aside, what I meant is that, if your manned ship crashes on a planet, even if you have an unmanned QRF on site, if they have to broadcast a distress signal to Earth, await for it to reach its destination, await for the ground team to make critical decisions, await the answer to reach the QRF and await for the QRF to reach them, they’ll be dead before the reinforcements arrive.
Horus Lupercal said:
Complete the tasks that can’t be done by machines. Like? Jokes aside from tasting rocks, what can you do that a machine cannot do for longer and more efficiently
To think, Horus.
A machine can’t think, only can follow its programming. I can.
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that requires thinking, something like a complicated space mission, my fellow humans and me will do it better than a machine.
And before you claim that we will develop human-like AI before we reach the outer planets, I personally believe AIs will never reach human intelligence, mostly because us humans will not allow a Terminator-style future (you know, that old sentence that, if they are smarter than us, why they should serve us?). But this is not the topic on discussion.
But still, giving that the current AI has basically the same IQ than a cockroach, and that I believe we will reach Mars within this century, and the AI will obviously still won’t be intelligent enough to replace us in 100 percent of tasks, you will still need people to control the machines, cause if you’re on Mars, the response time is 1 hour, and I don’t have to say that in 1 hour your experiment will fail and your downed crew will die.
Horus Lupercal said:
Erm, this makes no sense here. Are you saying that NASA lacks the money, technology, materials, and know-how to make bespoke modules?
NASA does all they can, not all they want. That’s what I’m saying.
Horus Lupercal said:
Aluminum cylinders are what modules are made out. So in SFS, I’ve no issue with using aluminium cylinders. That is not lack of imagination, that’s just how its done.
That’s a severe lack of imagination by your side, not NASA’s. The thing is that NASA does it like that because that’s enough to do the task they are designed to do. Granted, you can copy NASA and do it like that, but you’re on a game, where you don’t have the limitations of money, tech…. all the ones I mentioned above, that NASA has in RL. So, if you make all your modules like that and think this is the best and the only way to do it, that’s lack of imagination, cause you are not forced to make them like that, and certainly you can make them better and cooler.
Horus Lupercal said:
And I’m gonna burn this entire paragraph to the ground.
Cool down those flames, Sir. I’m not letting you do that.
First of all, to cool you dawn:
Horus Lupercal said:
And you have no more evidence to say there isn’t a door on the otherside, than I have to say there is.
Wrong completely wrong.
Remember a while ago when you told me I cannot say there is no astronaut on the capsule, cause there is a single line of flat text saying there is? Then I can tell you that you have absolutely no physical evidence that there is a door on the other side, while I have the physical evidence that there isn’t. It’s the same situation.
The same way I cannot say the capsule is empty, you cannot say is not empty cause it has no way to get in. We’re kinda stuck on a tie, so let me break it.
I understand your point, in the game there is supposed to be an astronaut inside the capsule, but the thing is that is we cannot see him, we cannot drive him, we can’t make him do anything, its basically fake, inexistent, that’s my point. (No, I’m NOT saying invisible things are inexistent, but in this frame, in this context, in this very VERY specific case, they are).
When 1.6 is released and we have ACTUAL astronauts that we can see, drive and walk around with, they will become as part of this game as fuel tanks and engines are.
Chiller down now, flame boy?
Horus Lupercal said:
Oh dear. You want him to do exactly the same implementation that you are saying means nothing because there is no other evidence that supports it?
I might not have chosen my argument correctly…
But the thing is you completely missed my point just because an example poorly chosen. I meant it shouldn’t be too hard to implement a couple of habitable modules among the game parts.
Horus Lupercal said:
Where else would they mention it? In the fuel tanks tooltip? On the landing legs? Written on the side of the probe core? ‘Made by humans, but they are only in the capsules’
Funny, but no.
•How about if there are other capsules containing more astronauts?
•How about if there is a section containing modules for space stations? You know, those who have astronauts inside?
•How about if 1.51 brings an actual difference between using a probe and using a capsule?
•How about if we can hear some random radio chatting in the background during a mission?
•How about if there’s a warning for high TWR rockets saying: ‘Your astronauts will not tolerate the high G during the ascent’?
These are just ideas, JUST IDEAS, to make astronauts participate a little more in the game. You implement one, maybe a couple, maybe even three of those, and will be easier to feel that you are using actual astronauts than right now, where you only have 5 words mentioning their existence.
More evidence that you have NO imagination.