tseitsei89

Challenge needs some rules to be challenging... If everything is allowed, everything is easy.

Yeah, I havent actually built my "recovery/refueler" yet so I dont know exactly how it will work but I'll see what is most efficient. I'll have to bring a converter to the surface of Eve anyway but we'll see. I dont have patience to travel to the highest peak from sea leve nor the docking skills required for your mission profile. Impressive and will result in a really low total cost if you can return everything. You would only pay for the initial fuel needed...

Crafts So, I have now designed an Eve lifter (Walrus) and the craft in need of rescue (Manatee). Walrus can land to Eve's surface from orbit and once docked with the Manatee can assist Manatee to a stable 100x100km orbit from ~sea level. Ascent profile is very sensitive though and I am usually left with less than 100m/s dv. Next I need to design a refueling craft (Otter) that will also bring Manatee from ocean to solid ground. It will be docked to Walrus (in place of the Manatee) at the beginning of the mission and it will leave a fuel tank to low Eve orbit for refueling so Manatee can get back to Kerbin. Whole mission plan is roughly the following: 1. Walrus + Otter combo launches from kerbin and achieves orbit. 2. Next stop is refuel at minmus (Walrus might need some modification to be able to land there). 3. Then refuel at Gilly if needed and leave a fuel tank in orbit for the return journey. 4. Land the rest of the craft to Eve near the Manatee. 5. Refuel everything. 6. Undock Otter and get to Manatee. 7. Dock to Manatee and convert ore in Manatee's tank to LF/Ox so you can get back to Walrus. 8. Refuel Manatee once right next to Walrus. Undock Otter from Manatee and dock Manatee to Walrus. 9. Launch Manatee to low Eve orbit. 10. Refuel from the fuel tank left behind earlier. 11. Go home. EDIT: I am mostly going for the lowest mass category but launch cost won't be too insane either. Altough vectors are so expensive...

Oh this is good! I dont care if it's old or if entries are still accepted or not, but I will start planning this tomorrow.

IMHO KER or some other dv/twr display tool is completely undeniably necessary in the stock game. If that is not included, it is absolutely horrible game design choice. Dv and twr are such an important information when trying design a rocket that a game meant for designing and flying rockets simply has to have this tool available.

Yep. I dont think we have materials that could handle the forces the elevator needs to endure...

Mass drivers would be much more feasible on atmosphereless bodies. But that would be a nice idea. Space elevator, if implemented should be insanely expensive to build. I mean, it is HUGE!

The modpack I just talked about is a crude version of exactly that

Sorry my bad. You just said that all existing LS implementation are tedious or trivial. I showed you to a mod pack that has LS that is neither. And you just chose to ignore that

@Brikoleur I just showed you to a system that you claimed doesnt exist (you said that all life support implementations will be tedious since they need frequent supply flights). But whatever you have clearly made up your mind and wont even consider how this could be implemented properly

Please just take a look at the planetary logistics system in the USI MKS/OKS. It solves the "unavoidable" grind problem you keep constantly mentioning. EDIT: The system explained shortly: You have a planetary base producing the needed products. You have have a capable transport vehicle at that base. Now you can automate deliveries to the orbital station around that celestial body once supplies there get too low. The system will check if you have an appropriate transport vehicle in place and enough fuel and enough supplies. Then it will just automatically move the supplies to orbital station and delete the approximate amount of fuel the mission would take. No grind but you have to have a proper infrastructure in place.

I would like to encourage you to look at USI-MKS/OKS. Especially the planetary logistics system. It is by no means trivial to make a self sustaining base in that mod set but it is possible. And you dont have to fly these "milk runs" those are automated with the planetary logistics system to work in the background. Edit: and once again. There should obviously be an option to turn LS off if you find it tedious/unfun

Of course every feature takes time and resources to implement... and of course there are good ways and bad ways to implement it. But life support is such an essential mechanic and important thing to consider in space flight and mission planning that it simply has to be in a game where your whole purpose is to design and fly missions in space and on other planets... In addition it will make some stuff, that is currently not that useful in ksp1, worth using/exploring more and that is always a good thing. For example high-energy transfers to reduce travel times and change launch windows and unmanned probes become a more interesting option since sending kerbals means bringing LS "There will be mods for that" is a really really lousy reason not to add such an important core mechanic to the stock game. Of course it should be made toggleable in options so you can play the way you want to play. But really this mods reasoning is like "okay lets only put 10 parts and 2 planets to the game since there will be mods with more parts and planets anyway"

But career mode will (hopefully) be designed so that you will have to do a lot of interplanetary stuff before you unlock these better engines. Then you can do harder stuff to unlock more powerful stuff and so on and so on. Of course early game missions will be easy with late game tech. This is already the case in KSP1. Mun landing is really easy with all the parts unlocked, but reasonably hard with 30 part limit and only low tech parts. I just hope that they'll plan and balance career mode much better than in KSP1...

If we will have life support we will most certainly also have a way to farm our own food at the base to make it self sufficient so we can also use that "cheat"... EDIT: also the added time pressure from LS will no doubt encourage us to explore faster high-energy transfers instead instead of just good old hohmann every time. And that is an excellent thing.

Yeah... Changing stats of a part is essentially making it a different part. I mean if we both have an engine called Raptor for example but your Raptor has 350 ISP while mine only has 300 ISP, it is quite obvious that we have different parts. Your Raptor designs will not work with my part set because our parts are different and have different capabilities. This would be fine because then we would all still have the same pieces unlocked via tech tree. Our parts just wouldnt be whole engines but rather parts of engines. But if I make a craft with some parts and share that craft, it will work similarly for other players. But then again I dont really see a need for that. It would give some more room for optimization which is good but might be quite complicated for new players. It is a question of how fine details we want to go to. I would be okay either way

Well both pretty much, but I certainly dont want it to be in the base game... EDIT: I also read through the thread quickly to see what ideas have been said about craft sharing and such. Pretty much the only proper idea I saw was just including the upgrades in the craft file but that is still bad IMO since everybody is no longer using the same part set. That is the main problem: I really like the idea of everyone having the same pieces to work with. I mean, if I see a cool ship I want to replicate it and maybe try to improve it in some way. If I have different parts I obviously cant do that. Also I like forum challenges and there it is important that everyone is working with the same piece set.

For me sharing crafts and attending different forum competitions has been a huge part of the game so I really like the idea that everyone has access to same pieces. So I'm not a big fan of this idea

I'm quite sure it can be turned off. Otherwise it would be a horrible game design choice

I know we can do this in KSP 1. I just hope they "fix" it for KSP 2... And again the exact number is not the point. The point is that we shouldnt be able to launch huge bases and stations all on a single launch.

Good thing is that this can be done in steps: 1. you only need oxygen for your very first orbital crafts. So just build and go. 2. Then you need food for munar ship (but you dont need to farm it. just pack it with you) and probably some oxygen recycling too. Pretty much build and go but this teaches you to at least consider the length of the mission. 3. When you start making a base you maybe want to ship in only a little bit of fertilizer and grow your own food. This lasts for a while and lets you expand your base. You can also send in more fertilizer with each expansion delivery. 4. Then you might want to start mining operations and maybe start making your own fertilizer on the spot. Probably start mining fuel and metal ores to refuel and maybe even build simple ships.Now you are introduced to mining and you probably want to make your colony more self sustainable so you dont have to babysit it anymore. 5. Later you will want more efficient fuels like radioactive materials and methane. Now you already know the basic mechanics and it is time to get more complicated. 6. And lastly you will probably want to manufacture complex parts and ships directly at the base so you will start to mine and refine rare materials and other stuff you need for those

Thats fine also It doesnt really matter if you nerf the engines or make all the parts heavier. The effect is the same.

We dont know. We also dont know if life support will be in the game but we are discussing here what we hope would be in the game. Supply flights wouldnt need any "real" automation either. IIRC the supply flights in USI mods are not actually flown at all. game just checks if you have sufficient resources (including fuel etc.) and a predetermined launch vehicle in the base and then teleports it to the goal base with appropriate time delay simulating flight time. Yes of course micro management is not wanted. And yes we definitely need a way to make a base self sufficient without any user input. However IMO it shouldnt be "easy" and quick like just slapping few lightweight parts on top of a ship. It should require planning and multiple launches and orbital/on planet assembly.

Take a look at USI LS and USI MKS/OKS mod packs for KSP 1 to see what I kind of mean. Lots of good mechanics there, of course it is not perfect either but the core idea is good IMO. You can make a completely self sustaining base but that takes lots of time and effort. (And there is a system to automatically do trivial resource delivery flights in the background too.)

I dont want to be sending constant resupply flights to all 25+ bases BUT that is why I would make the colonies self sustaining by collecting resource on the planet. But achieving that self sustainability should (IMO) require more than just slapping down a hitchiker can with a kerbal in it. Option to turn it off is of course great and much needed to make the game fun for as many people as possible