Jump to content

crenelatedcheese

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About crenelatedcheese

  • Rank
    scientific explosions

Recent Profile Visitors

112 profile views
  1. The tidal forces from different gravity would rip apart the elevator. I agree with K^2, its much easier to build a ramp, and there's nothing you can do on planets with atmospheres except those slingshot things.
  2. This is a great idea! Maybe you could have supports that could withstand whatever it is down there and be able to have a big colony supported by the ground far below, or have a giant balloon with ballast to float a whole city up above the clouds
  3. but whats the point of a floating colony? I was thinking one that could move quickly to get science from different places, but it would take a lot of funds and science to get going otherwise it would be too overpowered.
  4. With a space station though, you could get creative with the interior, for example making an elevator that makes it more realistic and practical to transfer through parts, but yeah it would be pointless for a massive colony
  5. I can't believe no one replied to this. With interactive space stations you could do more experiments and actually have to do work instead of just pressing a button.
  6. I think you should have application specific science. For example, you only start with solid fuel and liquid fuel, but you need to "discover" other types of fuel, by outlining the problem or discovering a resource. You might "discover" propellers after landing on another place with an atmosphere and taking an atmospheric scan. You might only "discover" bigger engines after you take a seismic scan or something during takeoff. You might only "discover" fusion torchships or xenon engines after collecting helium 3 on the mun or xenon on kerbin. Heat shields might be "discovered" after taking a tem
  7. There seems to be a lot of talk about a science overhaul. Here are my thoughts. I think you should have application specific science. For example, you only start with solid fuel and liquid fuel, but you need to "discover" other types of fuel, by outlining the problem or discovering a resource. You might "discover" propellers after landing on another place with an atmosphere and taking an atmospheric scan. You might only "discover" bigger engines after you take a seismic scan or something during takeoff. You might only "discover" fusion torchships or xenon engines after collecting helium 3 on t
  8. underwater features can be pretty interesting, like a submarine dock and an underwater colony to investigate the oceans for resources and science.
  9. Will KSP 2 have big surface features? The ones in breaking ground are alright, but they're pretty small. With big surface features such as Mars' Olympus Mons or Io's cryovolcanoes, bigger and more interesting bases can be created, and procedurally generated caves and underground features can provide an interesting new way to get science, and a better reason to have rovers. New science parts can observe the volcano plume or scan the surface for caves and ravines.
  10. seeing everything else the devs have done, I'm hopeful they will make a great progression system.
  11. Hmm, The devs mentioned supply lines where the ship can autonomously ship things from one place to another, could these supply lines export valuable resources to be "sold" on Kerbin?
  12. Will there be new resources in KSP 2, for example minerals and special materials to recolor the craft (like gold foil) or be recovered for funds? Different materials on each planet so exploring each biome is more interesting?
  13. Sounds interesting, maybe have some valuable stuff to mine or science deep inside; may I suggest caves?
×
×
  • Create New...