Search the Community

We earnt 16k profit from one launch in Rocket Scientist difficulty using a ridiculous zero tech rocket that took us to Dres and back. Kerbal leg power was also essential for this great success.

The current primary missions focus too much on the monument storyline lore, leaving little to no room for the rest of the solar system, which makes them feel more empty. For a game mode called “Exploration”, you don’t seem to do much of it. The kerbolar System is stunning in this game, they should show it off. I think the primary missions could benefit from shifting their focus from lore to exploration. This shows off the beauty of the Solar system, while making the lore feel more rare and special. Each planet and moon should have a dedicated primary mission, exploring what makes each respective body unique. Each and every body has a different set of challenges associated with it, so exploring those challenges teaches the player how to design crafts for specific destinations, a very important set of concepts and skills. This would slow down the pace of the alien story line, and make each discovery feel more special, unexpected, and immersive; as you share the emotions of the kerbals. Currently the primary missions send you only to places that have a monument, making them lose their sense of unexpected adventure. When it sends you to minmus/duna/jool straight after the last monument discovery, you are already expecting to find another one. You don’t feel like you’re discovering these for yourself, and they take away from the experience of landing on these bodies for the first time, as they are overshadowed by these discoveries. If you go to duna as a testament of the kerbal spirit, becoming a multiplanetay species, and then finding a strange signal/interference after the fact, you feel like you’ve discovered this for yourself, in addition to landing on another planet for the first time. Going to jool should start off as an expedition to explore joolian moons, not to find the source of a signal for the 4th time in a row. After the mun monument, the missions shift from “Kerbal firsts” to “send probe, land at monument, repeat”. Each time you go somewhere you already know you’ll find something, so it doesn’t feel as special. It should be “hey let’s land on duna, the first interplanetary mission!” Then after landing there, you get “hey while we were at duna we picked up some strange interference, send a probe into a polar orbit to search for this interference”, then “oh hey we found the source, it appears to be up north, go send a rover to investigate” etc etc. Sending the probe into a polar orbit could also teach players about how polar orbits are useful for precise landings, as you pass over everywhere on the planet as it rotates under you. The final primary mission should be an eve return mission, doubling down on its “final boss” reputation. You’ve got all the experience of the rest of the kerbolar system under your belt, everything has been leading up to this. You want to prove that you can conquer your own solar system before you venture out into the stars, where the monuments have been leading you. You want to prove to your celestial cousins that you are ready. This exploration focused primary mission set would also compliment the secondary missions, which focus a lot on doing precise landings, sending cargo, large crews, etc, all things that people tend to do after initial landings. The primary missions mean players are already familiar with all the celestial bodies’ characteristics and challenges, allowing them to better plan missions to these places with the skills they have developed throughout their save. Overall I think a more exploration focused primary mission set would feel more fulfilling as you complete them, showing off the full kerbolar system, teaching the player all the skills they need to visit these bodies on their own or in the secondary missions, while also making the lore story line feel more immersive and exciting. It’s called “Exploration mode” after all.

The following are my thoughts, more or less on what I would do to distinguish KSP2 from KSP and make it a far greater experience if I were making the game. I'm not demanding these things, and understand that the structure and affordances of the game at a basal level may already be set in stone in many respects. Still, now is the time to talk about what can be made, while it's still a bunch of ideas in all our heads. What is KSP2 trying to surpass anyway? What is KSP1? KSP1 is a rocket simulator at its core, the "challenge" that the game entices the player with are the construction of working vehicles and the piloting of those vehicles to various destinations. There's never been much to "do" at those destinations, except take in the sights, maybe send a rescue mission, or try to build the biggest thing you can there. There didn't need to be more than that - KSP is about spacecraft design and flight, and teaches players about the challenges of spaceflight and the thrill of getting from here to there while trying to avoid blowing up. The science system acts as a simple form of guided progression, and science instruments don't provide much practical purpose except as a source of a currency for unlocking more diverse spaceship parts as a reward for traveling to new destinations with limited technology. The mission system also provides a set of design and flight challenges that act as "suggestions" if you're stumped on where you want to go next. What could KSP2 do that's "more" or "different" from that? Right now, KSP2 basically has all those things KSP1 does: The rocket simulator, the flight challenges, the unlockable parts, etc. It also has updated graphics to rival the best KSP1 mods, some slight changes to the UI, and an ecosystem of bugs almost as diverse as I'd expect to find by overturning a log in the Amazon. So KSP2 is using KSP1 as a base so far, to hopefully metamorphose into a new and different experience. There are a few main "new" aspects the devs seem to be working towards for KSP2, and while I see the beginnings of some of those inside the 'skeleton' of the game today, there are some things that have been carried over from KSP1 that I think don't help KSP2 grow to the greatest experience it can be and develop its own "personality" if they remain as they are. KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator. KSP1 helped players answer for themselves "Why should we build rockets?", to the point that the story of KSP players enrolling in aerospace engineering programs because of the game has become somewhat common. For this reason, I consider KSP to be the best game. (I myself graduated as an aerospace engineer last year, though I can't say that KSP inspired it - I was already committed to becoming an astronaut long before I heard of the game. I've had interviews with SpaceX for various positions in recent months, but no offers yet.) Where KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator, I see KSP2 as trying to be a "space program" simulator. In KSP1, the player could build powerful rockets and touch down on any body in the solar system, but it would occur in isolated missions or voyages. Where KSP1 asked players "Why should we build rockets?", KSP2 seems to want to ask a question more like "What should we USE our rockets for now that we've built them?". The colonies, base-building mechanics, and interstellar destinations seem to point to a goal of letting players create a vibrant ecosystem of space travel. Instead of singular missions and tiny labs in space, we would be creating cities on the planets and trade routes between them, with complex exchanges of resources and technology culminating in the assembly of an interstellar vessel and the opening of the wide frontier. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to teach players not just about how rockets go from here to there, but about how they gather the information while exploring that leads to scientific discoveries and better informed designs of new vessels, and about the realistic challenges of living and building on another planet, and, most importantly, about exactly what makes it worthwhile to go to all that effort of leaving our perfect blue marble behind and actually trying to live there. To that note, there are a few specific aspects of the game that are presently implemented in a way that I think will be detrimental to those goals (which I just made up in my head) if they continue to build directly off of KSP1 and the simple precursors in the game now. These are the main aspects that I think should be overhauled to make KSP2 a grand step forward from KSP1: Realistic Science Currently, science in KSP2 functions purely as a currency for unlocking new ship parts. The experiment modules themselves don't provide any useful information, and the game doesn't go out of its way to tell you what was learned from each experiment. The experiments are all packaged together in a mysterious bundle, and the only interaction from the player is a simple reaction to the blinking "science" button, to click and receive science points. This is based directly on science in KSP1, which had the same function as a currency but allowed more direct viewing of the readings from some instruments like thermometers and barometers. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to embrace science in a more realistic way, and bring a taste of actual science for players. The repeated clicking on individual experiments from KSP1 doesn't need to return for this, but perhaps an "experiment manager" window or some other form of more in-depth interaction would be warranted. What I mean by this is for the science experiments to act as sensors measuring quantitative qualities of the environment. Examples of this would be a probe dropping into the atmosphere of a planet with a barometer and thermometer and creating graphs of pressure and temperature by altitude for that planet, or a spacecraft orbiting a planet with LIDAR to map its terrain for the first time, while the player would not be able to see the surface detail up close in map view or with probes before doing that. The player could gather actual scientific data, and the game could guide them into understanding why they've learned something about the planet by doing what they've done ("See the spikes in your spectrometer reading? Those prove that there is water on Duna!" "You measured a dip in this star's brightness, that must have been caused by its planet!") I recall the devs mentioning the idea of not giving the player all the information about planets right away, and players having to "discover" at least some celestial bodies on their own. I think this idea of the player gradually building up their own "discovered world" based on their own measurements helps with that, and I hope science gains a lot more depth and realism in KSP2 in the future. Some of the science experiments I can think of: -Magnetometers that can map planets' and stars' magnetic fields over time by orbiting them, and can help forecast solar storms -Spectrometers that give spectra for stars, planet atmospheres, and surface samples, which the player can look over to characterize composition -RADAR, LIDAR, and cameras that allow the player to record detailed maps of surface topography -Telescopes with various specialized instruments and wavelength ranges for observation of deep space objects, exoplanet discovery, and mapping the stellar neighborhood Player-Driven Exploration With discovery at the forefront of the game, I think the player will have all the incentive they need to drive the direction of their space program on their own. Want to explore the Sun? Prioritize radiation and magnetic science parts. Made an unexpected fascinating discovery about Jool? Drum up the resources for a planetary probe. Prefer visiting Minmus over the Mun? Focus the game on that destination. Show the player the options, and let them choose their own goals. A big place where I feel the game falls short of this are the anomalies. Instead of encouraging the player to go to space to learn about their environment and place in the universe, about the natural beauty of the world, the game sets the main goal as learning about the ancient aliens who were in the Kerbol system. I think having those artifacts in the game is no problem at all, and can make for a really cool adventure, but no part of the game should tell us to go seek them out or visit them. I would implement them far more subtly, requiring the player to discover them through actual anomalies in the data they gather as they explore. For instance, mapping out the magnetic environment around the Mun with an orbiting probe and discovering a strong localized magnetic field that reveals the location of the Mun arch. No Keri Kerman telling us that there is an arch, no mission handed to us by the game - all the incentive and excitement can come from a pure "What's THAT?" as the player discovers a tantalizing measurement. Then, visiting the arch (which should probably be covered up to begin with until excavation is possible) could allow discovery of an actual signal, a puzzle which would need to be deciphered by the player. Another example would be finding nearby stars and exoplanets. Once the player has the technology to do parallax measurements and light curves of stars, the game shouldn't tell them where to look in the sky. They should just be able to start a sky survey or point their telescope at whichever star they like, and see what they find. They might not know about all the same planets as some other player does, and when the time comes to launch their interstellar vessel they'll choose a different star to point it at, based on what they've discovered. Resources As the game progresses into colony-building, I'm sure the focus on material resources will grow, as now it isn't there but I can see the place for it in the game. On extraplanetary bases, it's obvious that there will be a limited budget of raw materials, metals, oxygen, etc. with which to build rockets, buildings, and other machines, with that budget coming from resource extractors and mining of the surface through combing, excavating, and drilling the planets. Other planets would also have alternate materials available like regolith for buildings, roads, and launch pads. On Kerbin, presumably advanced industry elsewhere on the planet is able to supply KSC with an "allowance" of materials and parts, which don't necessarily need to be limited by cost in money units, but could be limited by quantity available, especially for specialized parts like probe cores and science instruments. For instance, "There are 6 FL-T200 fuel tanks available" or "There are 3 probe cores and 1 capsule available". Part of the player's directive for exploration could be the strategization of prioritizing production/purchase of certain kinds of parts and materials. Probes vs. space station modules, longer range antennas, different types of experiments...These would make every player's "space program" unique and personalized. Conclusion This is basically my outline for what I personally imagine KSP2 could be like in the future. The main aspects I see in this "speculative" version of KSP2 are: Science experiments functioning in a realistic way, as sensors that observe the environment, and conclusions about the universe being drawn from those observations, as well as useful information for designing and piloting vehicles in those environments Player-driven exploration, with much less direction coming from the mission system as to what to focus on or find important A focus on material resources for production of parts, vehicles, buildings, and missions that is adaptable to the player's self-determined goals There are a few places in the game where I see gameplay mechanics that I think will prevent KSP2 from achieving these aspects if they are left as they are and taken for granted. Mainly these are copied from KSP1: The "science point" system and its dynamic with the tech tree Exploration being driven by "missions" where the game tells you where you should go and what aspects of space exploration you should consider important I think those aspects from KSP1, which themselves were added after the core identity and function of the game were fairly well established, should be rethought and reworked to better fit the mission of KSP2. I'm not demanding that they be changed or made to fit what I've described here, my only request is that they not be taken for granted just because they're the status quo. I know this is just my idea, and I'm sure the actual game could turn out very differently from what I've described and still be a very good game. The devs have no doubt been thinking and shooting ideas around about these very topics for years longer than I have, too. Developers, thanks for listening to the community, and thanks for your dedication and commitment to trying to make something even greater than the best game ever.

So I saw this post and I think OP there has a point, but I have my own take on it and at this point, I think it's worth making a new topic. So KSP1 and 2 both have exploration in the sense that they have a great big sandbox for you to travel around in, but I think an "exploration game" is a game where exploration is 1) interesting and 2) challenging. And neither KSP1 nor KSP2 had interesting or challenging exploration. Now, don't get me wrong, both games are challenging. That's a fact. But exploration isn't. Go to Map view and you can see everything in as much detail as you realistically ever will. Yeah, you can't see every rock on the Mun, but it's not like you can do anything with those rocks. And yes you can't see every hill and valley, but none of those hills or valleys are dramatic enough to matter to picking a landing site and you don't get science for exploring deeper-than-average valleys or higher-than-average hills. If you've ever played Minecraft and finally found an ice spikes biome after searching for days and mapping every ocean in a 1K block radius, you know what the joy of exploration is. It's the joy of searching, scanning the horizon, hoping to see what your looking for. Rationing food, creating outposts, running out of resources and having to return home only to go out again to search more. That's exploration. I've never felt that playing KSP, not even close. Because I've always known exactly where I was going, and pretty much exactly what I was gonna find. Now, there is no actual need to have exploration be a major feature in KSP. But I do think it's something that could raise KSP2 to the next level and create a kind of joy and challenge that we have so far not been able to experience. Below I've listed some general ways that I think it would be possible for KSP to incorporate exploration in a more meaningful way. I'd love to hear what you guys have to say about it. 1) Reward variety Minecraft actually provides a reason to go to a desert or a jungle. Different resources, different structures, different locales to build bases. It's not just that deserts have more loot than jungles, it's that they provide different value. You can't get pandas from deserts and you can't get cactus from jungles. KSP1 and 2 both suffer from all biomes being essentially the same. At best you might get slightly more science from the poles or from a monument, but that's not an exciting difference. If, instead, you could make a munar discovery that allowed you to build a special new type of engine by gathering a sample in a specific region, that could be an actual reason to explore. It's a reason to be excited that you finally found a munar valley so you can finally build that probe exactly the way you want to. Even something as simple as unlocking certain paint styles by visiting certain celestial bodies would give you some reason to go to some of the less visited bodies. Rewards that are just science or money become stale when you have lots of both. Rewards that are non-fungible, that are actually unique, those can be really inspiring. ideas for adding this: Samples from certain biomes give you non-tech tree discoveries, e.g. a new compound found on the mun unlocks a special side-mounted engine or a smaller more powerful satellite dish. Samples from Certain biomes unlock special paint jobs for rocket parts Samples from Certain biomes allow you to upgrade certain parts. e.g. the Reliant engine gets an ISP boost because of asteroid debris found in a munar crater. Samples from Certain biomes advance the kerbals understanding of the universe, allowing you unique abilities. e.g. you can now use all maneuver capabilities without a pilot (I know it isn't in KSP2 yet, whatever). Please keep in mind that while it may sound dull to have to go to a specific munar biome to unlock a particular paint job, some of my subsequent ideas might help with that. 2) Variety in Challenges Right now there is an element of tedium to going to each biome on the mun. You can see them all from orbit so you just have to do 5 identical missions landing in different spots. They are all essentially the exact same mission, and that is pretty tedious. Something that could spice things up is providing different challenges for different biomes. Ideas: Certain parts of Duna have major windstorms that blow you to and fro Other parts are very rocky and therefore difficult to land flat in. On the mun you could have basins in the bottom of caves that can't be flown to but require a speedy rover. You could have munar sand beds that are spongy and therefore easier to land on. Certain areas on the Mun could have a ground covering that messes with the ranging meaning you can only use sea-level altitude and not height from ground, making landing more challenging. Even features as simple as steep mountains mean you need to either execute a high-precision landing right on the peak, or make a craft that won't slide down the steep face. These kinds of unique challenges are a nice compliment to unique rewards. If you want a special engine, you have to design a special craft to overcome a unique challenge. It also means that landers cannot be as frequently re-used. You actually need to re-tool your ship for each new destination. 3) "Randomness" in environment Something else that is difficult is that you can see the whole mun in stunning quality immediately. You always know exactly where you are going to land from the start. Having some kind of fog-of-war where you can't see the landing site in detail (perhaps it's all pixelated) until you either scan it with a satellite or get close enough would mean you would need to be prepared for the unexpected. Combined with the variety above, it could mean that you need to build really adaptable ships, or do preliminary scouting, both of which would be exciting and rewarding missions. Another thing that could be done is adding features that simply do not appear on the map view until they are discovered. So perhaps you can see a crater, but you can't see if there is a meteor remnant in the middle, so you need to do an expedition to find out. And then if there is one, you can unlock a unique part or a science reward or whatever. This would encourage people to build a lander with a rover that can go explore. More detail on this kind of stuff below. I should note here I don't think a random or procedurally generated map would be a good idea. Rather everyone should have the same Mun, but you just can't see details of it in the map view until you actually map it. 4) Rules and science connecting environments and informing randomness Something that takes exploration to the next level for me is when you know that there are rules governing your exploration. For example, a Minecraft Savanna will always border a desert. And Ice spikes are often found near cold oceans. So when you are looking for a desert and you find a savanna, you can go around the perimeter, and when you are looking for ice spikes, you can get excited when you see a cold ocean because you know you might be close to your quarry. Being much more science based, KSP2 has an even greater opportunity to do this. On the Mun, give some mares asteroid debris fields on their borders that can be scanned for a chance to recover pieces of a meteor. On Duna have mountains form ranges where some mountains will, on close inspection, turn out to be volcanoes that can be used as a source of geothermal energy. This is the reason you might build a serious all-terrain rover, one that can challenge Duna's mountains to efficiently scavenge them for Volcanoes. Or perhaps it may justify you building a Duna plane with high-res cameras and sensors so you can fly over the mountain ranges hoping to pick up heat signatures. These kinds of connections mean players can get excited at finding a large thing that they can explore, searching for a small thing. And that is the sort of exploration people can really get invested in. It's a problem that is possible to solve with brute force, spending 1000 hours in EVA, but encourages creative problem solving. Creating mega-rovers and spy planes that can automate the tedius tasks. I think that these sort of additions could make KSP2 a true exploration game that rewards and encourages the development of a huge variety of vehicles to overcome equally varied challenges across the galaxy. I don't purport to know exactly how such features would specifically fit, but I hope this is a direction the devs give consideration to.

I've got about 40 hours into 0.2.0.0 which is/isn't a lot depending on how you play etc. I've driven across Duna in rovers from the South Pole to the North pole starting with 0.1.0.0 (that was a horrible time) and since release I've gone to Duna and "explored." I absolutely love Science Mode and felt it was severely lacking in KSP1. Here's a few ideas I've got for the devs and community to consider. Below is a series of images from my most recent Duna mission that is still ongoing. I'm using it as it is what inspired me to write this feedback. First a short story from my journey to Duna. I had 319 dv to get a capture with Duna. I had an encounter setup to 34km as I was hoping this would work. I I had my little engine left with 154 dv and a dream. Hoping I wouldn't burn up in atmo. The Kraken was kind! Successfully captured by Duna and on the way to the target! I was short of the target. But all things considered, I was fortunate to be on the surface of Duna and not orbitting Kerbol. The moment of truth! Would my contraption work? Would my rover blow up? Would it land properly? Success! The landing pad worked and the jerry rigging I did with decouplers and two gear wheels worked to get the rover off the landing pad! That is when the pain set in. I had the exhilarating experience of landing on Duna by the skin of my teeth. I was nervous and thankful to be on the surface of Duna. Now I was set to explore. I've driven a lot on Duna (from South Pole to the North Pole) so I was confident in traversing Duna. I didn't get the exhilarating experience while driving on Duna. It felt very tedious yet again to be driving on Duna. I had already been to the destination I was headed in previous versions. What was the point of doing the same thing over, but now it has a science reward? It felt dissatisfying. I felt that science had to be better. I want that wonder and curiosity of I don't know what I could find around the next meteor crater feeling. Below you'll see the route I took with the time it took me. One hour and 29 minutes driving on the surface of Duna "exploring." The Challenge: How do we Explore? What are exploring for? Why are we even exploring? What is the question that the science we're gathering trying to answer? Disclaimer: SOME of these may already be in the works and I may not be aware that things are being worked on or they are things that won't be added. Please add to this and address those issues if something I bring up is something that will be added/never will be added etc. Let's start with the things that need to improve that are currently in the game as they relate to exploration. Exploration in its current state is missions being given out by the Mission Control. They're pre-determined locations that the dev's have that reward science points. There's apparently a few "hidden" locations scattered across the Kerbol system. With nothing in game to point players in the direction of these "hidden" locations, and no scientific tools at our disposal to scan areas, it becomes quite tedious and time consuming combing the surface of Mun or Duna for something special. The problem: there's nothing between point A and point B 1. What is the point of "Exploration" if we never discover things along the way to the big discoveries? 2. Why collect samples with probes when there's no way to gather the samples and return them other than having the probe return to Kerbin? 3. Kerbonauts have no specialization anymore. There's no pilot, engineer, or scientist. It's pointless picking a crew to do a mission. Ideas/Solutions: 1. Modify the Exploration Missions (the ones focused on going to a specific spot on a planet/moon) build upon each other, like clues and the players solve the mystery. 2. Add small scientific discoveries and a RNG of bonus science. For example, on Duna you're driving a rover and you collect a sample. Have the odds of the sample collected be worth more science points. 3. 2% Argon in the atmosphere should mean I find trace amounts of argon somewhere and I'm able to collect it with the correct scientific tool. 4. Add a science module that can be used to scan area's on planets for anything interesting. Kerbal it up and make it not 100% reliable. It may lead to something, and it may lead to a rock. 5. If players are going to drive across planets in rovers, have things to do while you're driving on the planet. I'm supposed to be exploring Duna and searching for evidence of life or why there's monuments and attempting to learn more science. But all I do is drive on a planet, where no dust accumulates on my solar panels, my rover likes to flip randomly, and every rock I see I can't drill into. 6. Specialize the Kerbonauts again. Let scientists be able to collect samples from the science jr's again and reset them. That way you can get a probe to orbit Mun/Minmus and on a follow up mission you can have your crew dock with that probe to collect the science it gathered. 7. Science should be the core mechanic that drives resource gathering. 8. Add handheld scientific experiments for Kerbonauts to conduct on the surface of planets/moons I want to feel like I can discover anything on the surface of any moon/planet that I'm on. Right now, I feel like other than a few landmarks, there is no exploration. It's a delicate balance. Getting science points shouldn't just be "hey it unlocks this part in the tech tree, that's the whole purpose of science points. You get the science, and you get parts!" Science points should also be more dynamic. "Events" happen on planets and if you can observe it you get more science for it. Maybe later on you add a dust storm on Duna that can be observed with atmospheric science. That is large scale and requires a lot of dev time. On a smaller scale, players should have procedurally generated science nodes/resources that spawn when they land on a surface of the Mun. For example, if player lands on Mun in X Mare, within 1000m of the players landing zone, there is up to x amount of special science to be found. Things that aren't tied to the landmarks and easter eggs. Just things that exist specific to these requirements: 1. The Planet/Moon 2. The Biome it's in Please feel free to add to the solutions and bring up any problems you see as well.

I thought devs need to make an archive of all the scientific reports you have done. It would be incredibly comfortable. You will be able to easily keep track of which locations you have visited and which have not yet been explored. This reduces to zero the chance that you will make a mistake and fly to an already visited location a second time. There will be no more confusion and no need to memorize what you have visited It is very sad to see scientific reports only "once in a lifetime" in case you fly to a faraway place. Now It's very easy to accidentally skip the science report and not see or understand something in the game's story, the content created by the writers is only visible to the player once. With the archive you will be able to read again any report you have done to understand the lore, to remember something or just for interest sake When you have an archive, the feeling that you are discovering something and increasing knowledge about the world increases many times over, you feel like a researcher. Your discoveries can be viewed at any time and they are expressed not only in the number of science points. The fact that you have an archive of lore knowledge increases the immersiveness of the game

This is the Platypus Dive Research Vehicle. I will give an overview of what is inside and how it works. Pilot Control Overview fast-flood main ballast tank fast-vent main ballast tank fine-flood main ballast tank find-vent main ballast tank trim for'ard (moves mass from the aft tank to the for'ard tank) trim aft (moves mass from the for'ard tank to the aft tank) Craft-File Editing: Resources The distinctive monoprop tanks are actually, from fore to aft: XenonGas, Oxidizer and MonoPropellant. The first of those two tanks was edited to include a new Resource section for the desired contents and with capacity expanded as desired. I retained the original MonoPropellant section but zeroed amount and maxAmount and inverted all the booleans (True to False and False to True) to nullify them. It's possible to simply remove them but for some kind of stock tanks, KSP defaults the 'known' resource back into existence if it does not appear at all. The for'ard trim tank is 24,000 units of XenonGas and the aft trim tank is 600 liters of MP. Respective densities are 0.1 kg/liter and 4, giving a 1-to-40 ratio in terms of mass. The 'standard' C7 Brand Adapter LFO tanks have been modified to contain a pure 800 liters of LF each. They power the Wheesley for conventional propulsion. I did just remove the Oxidizer section in these tanks and expand the capacity in liters of LF to be the sum (360 + 440), such that the total did not expand. Worth making a distinction here that this Adapter is a standard tank in the machine used for a conventional purpose, so I never 'cheat' when 'monkeying' (research term; look it up) with the contents of such 'for convenience'. The ballast system tanks are 'open season' because they are part of the 'magic'[TM] side here. There are mods for this kind of thing, but I generally find it desirable to avoid e.g. config files that others might then have to download. Craft-File Editing: Engines for resource production Apart from the conventional propulsive Wheesley, the following engines can be identified: two Twitches, a Puff and a Dawn. Their ModuleEnginesFX sections have been modified to set independentThrottle True and independentThrottlePercentage to a calculated (hugely) negative amount. The Twitch supplying OX for fast-flood of main ballast is geared to -40404.0391%, for example. The fine-flood Twitch uses -12121.212%. The OX is pushed to the central main ballast (yellow) tank. (The catch is that LF is also produced by this technique!) A worked example is worthwhile. I wanted to produce 250 liters of OX per second. The Twitch is rated at 1.125 liters/sec (LF + OX) fuel consumption. We want a percentage thrust. Hence: -250*20/11*100/1.125 = -40404.04.04 and you will realize that the multiplication by 20/11 (LF:OX being in a consumption ratio of 9:11) is intended to scale the OX component up to the total fuel production of the Twitch. The Dawn produces XenonGas for the for'ard trim tank and the Puff produces MP for the aft trim tank. Main ballast buoyancy control is relatively uncomplicated. Two Twitches producing LF/OX at different rates are employed for flooding and the OX goes directly to the single main ballast tank. Venting simply opens one of two drain valves on the OX tank, selecting the appropriate rate. The wrinkle, however, is that, while flooding the OX tank, LF is being pushed into the twin fuel (LF) tanks. Two opposed LF drain valves on one of the LF tanks, set in Vessel-draining mode, are opened to exactly vent the same amount of unwanted LF as is being produced by the running Twitch as a by-product. There are two sets of these LF valves, matching the two flood rates. Trim adjustment uses a similar technique for different reasons. Trim For'Ard produces XenonGas for the for'ard trim tank, adding mass. An equivalent mass has to be removed from the aft tank, so this is done by venting MP via a drain valve. Trim Aft works in reverse. So a note about the initial priming of the trim ballast subsystem. When those tanks (Xe and MP) are empty, Either of the Trim modes will fill one tank while venting an already-empty tank: a no-op. Thus, you can prep for ocean-going by filling one trim tank, while loitering on the surface. Filling the tank takes a while, but the advantage of completely filling it is that that total mass in the trim tanks is now exactly half of their total carrying capacity. That gives a) a known quantity consistent across every dive, and b)the greatest 'leverage' on trim balance via the greatest trim range. After priming, the opposite Trim command can be employed to balance fore and aft equally or, better yet, when the sub has been tuned to known quantities, that known balance can be dialed in, ready for dive operations. Submersible parameter tuning A trim ballast subsystem is possibly not so necessary on small, simple craft but ought to alleviate a lot of work at design time for large and/or complex submarines. Furthermore, dynamic trimming for differing fuel loads or to compensate at speed for unbalanced 'aerodynamic' drag may become important. A primitive guide to trim while in motion and with SAS engaged is to observe the plane angle and trim until is it neutral. The overall best and easiest way to tune is to take a submersible in its initial sea trials to the seabed (as an easy way to arrest/reset motion and attitude. Vent main ballast until the craft slowly rises. Patiently true out the vertical speed to zero. Release SAS and then observe attitude drift: bow (nose) up or down. Be patient but it is quite easy to find settings in which the sub hangs motionless in the water, with zero degrees attitude. Note the numbers, main and trim quantities. Planning and Design I ran a spreadsheet on everything to make it easier to adjust settings when anything unexpected forced a change. I'll expand on this in the near future... Issues and Future Work KSP truncates drainRate values into the range 1-20%. This is the annoying kind of 'fact-checking' that modern programmers must do to comply with corporate standards for making bland, boring, unimaginative, creativity-suppressing products. Where would we (I) be without the imaginative lack of concern displayed by Squad programmers when they wrote the code that trusted the human-editable craft file when it specified a vastly negative throttle setting, hey?? OK, so this forced me to have a faster fine-control vent rate than I wanted. Particularly as this was ultimately determined also by the LF fuel capacity for LF/OX production reasons. Adding valves (doubling up) can conceivably lift the 20% limit (although not very relevant to subs unless you wanted emergency evacuation in less than 5 secs). I noticed that the drain rate on one of multiple tanks, when set in Vessel-drain mode, appears to take the percentage on the tank (part) it is connected to, and disregards the total capacity of that kind of tank across the vessel. This suggests that a small, auxiliary tank can be added in some circumstances, with a vessel drain and a rate set, calibrated on the size of the small tank, such that an effective drain rate significantly less than 1% can be achieved. (I have assigned an underling on my staff to look into this, but he is known for laziness; well it will be his last chance!) This will work when like tanks are being filled/emptied uniformly. Another item to note relates to why trim ballast on Platypus is this strange platyputtian mix of Xenon and MP. The original intention had been to use MP uniformly across the two trim tanks and in the main ballast. Filling the for'ard trim tank would require producing MP for it, and the aft and the main, in the desired amount scaled across the total capacity of the three tanks. The main would simultaneously drain what it received and the aft trim would drain twice what it received. Unfortunately, fuel produced is not stored in the ratio of the individual tank's total capacity, but in the ratio of the tank's remaining capacity (i.e. emptiness). (A desirable way to do things, really, and exactly what my mod, Telemagic, does: to each according to its need and from each according to its ability.) Platypus unintentionally flies. Badly. With its puny wingspan (staying that way), its approach speed for a conventional landing would resemble a ballistic projectile. It can currently be flown to a dive site and enter the water, nose-first, under chutes at about 9 m/sec. Chutes repacked, and after a submerged vertical speed run, it can get airborne again and could be flown to KSC and ditched offshore and then taxied onto land. It is probably not hard at all to change the chute arrangement for it to perform a vertical gear-down landing on land (easy). The superable challenge would then be to effect the belly landing on water without breakage. I think a v3 update will add this capability shortly. Acknowledgements The first time I heard of the engine negative-gearing for resource production idea was from Dr @swjr-swis. (See the furtively beautiful Anion.) When I ran into the first set of issues with the original objectives (listed in Pilot Control Overview), I ruminated on what would be necessary to overcome them (and would eventually find an additional issue (unwanted production of LF)) but decided to publish Platypus in a slightly-restricted form ("publish or perish" re grant schedules, you know). Gratitude again to Dr @swjr-swis for the "push" to go the whole mile.

This is not a new idea, but I really think it's important for creating incentives to explore and rewarding the player for making progress. IMO it would improve gameplay if everything would not be revealed to the first low-tech probe missions and the image quality for telescopes / cameras / free-view would progressively change from grainy black & white / sepia / VHS etc. effects to beautiful natural images when seen during a manned mission. I'm really curious about your opinions. Inspired by the Hullcam and MovieTime KSP1 mods (and real life).

Some interesting visuals:

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the art department and creatives working on KSP2 have made a lot of cool new places to explore on the celestial bodies. I will just use Kerbin to represent what a ~10x increase in the number of anomalies would look like (from currently 20 to 200). The white question marks are existing anomalies in KSP1. The red question marks would be hypothetical new anomalies. We could fly or drive from one interesting place to another and we would have months worth of content to explore. The same could be done for the Mun - increase the number of interesting spots to visit from 8 to 80 (there are surely enough craters) and other celestial bodies. All that's needed to make the planets dense for exploration is creativity and a lot of work.

Jeb Crashed his personal SSTO into the KSC's Planned Interstellar Vehicle, Jeb managed to eject but now the KSC is taking this opportunity to build a more capable ship as opposed to sending kerbals in a cramped ship to another star. The KSC has some requirements for it. Banned Mechanics Kraken Drives KAL Overclocking Permitted Parts Mods KSPI-E Far Future Technologies Near Future Technologies Blueshift - Kerbal FTL (FTL Section ONLY) Kerbal Planetary Base Systems Extraplanetary Launchpads Tweakscale USI Life Support DeepFreeze B9 HX(Reconfig is ALLOWED) KARE Exploration Ship Requirements Must Carry a Reusable Lander capable of landing on all planets within the target system and returning to orbit Must be able to refuel itself(this capability can be installed on the lander) The Ship and the Lander cannot be the same craft, We can't have our fancy ISV get covered in scorch marks from reentry. Capable of returning to LKO at the end of the mission Main ship must carry Mobile Processing Lab Power Supply Habitat module Life Support Systems Cryopods(If Using Deepfreeze) Colonization Ship Requirements Must carry Either A self-sufficient colony The Equipment to Build a self-sufficient colony Must Carry a Reusable lander capable of repeated takeoffs and landings from the targeted planet Equipment to keep this Lander Fueled(Can Be Installed on the lander) Must be able to serve as an interplanetary freighter after the colony modules have been dropped off(You can use EL on your colony to build freight modules) Main ship must carry enough kerbals to colonize the system Ship must be capable of providing life support for the duration of the trip Must have a power supply General Requirements(Both Types) Must be able to go interstellar(GU Or Light Levels, Using Extrasolar, beyond home, or GEP, does not count) Capable of visiting all planets in the target system(No, you cant exclusively focus on a habitable planet, ISVs are expensive after all) You may carry multiple landers designed for different roles if your main lander is not capable of fufilling it(such as landing on a high G body which is basically airless) Play Fair, Dont Cheat, if your ISV is in one category, we will not compare it or say it is better than those in the other categories. STL Rules No Faster-Than-Light Drives, simple enough right? Otherwise do whatever you want so long as it doesnt break other rules FTL Rules Must Use Faster-Than-Light drives, Blueshift is allowed for this category Do whatever the love you want so long as it doesnt break other rules STL Submissions [Your Name Here] - [Your Ship Type Here] FTL Submissions [Your name here] - [Your Ship Type Here]

Introduction I have owned KSP since v0.18 but never really sent crew past Minmus. I am not a fan of "tin can exploration" where the crew stays in a command capsule for months on end. So when Kerbalism came out it ticked off many boxes for game features the stock did not have, including life support, part failures, and crew stress. Coupled with Nertea's suite of Mods, it is a lot easier to make aesthetically pleasing crewed crafts. The JNSQ system's scale also feels a bit better for me, as the rockets are better proportioned and the increased challenge for reaching planets. I originally cut my teeth on Kerbalism and JNSQ on an earlier playthrough with BDB exploring some of the inner system (Duna, Ike, Dres, Gilly), but I wanted to try a fresh restart and attempt to design unique launch vehicles using restock/restock plus This mission report will solely focus on the crewed exploration aspect with detailing on the design approach for the mission architectures. The first few posts will be a bit retrospective as I have already completed the missions for the inner system. Career Goals and Mission Parameters This mission report begins after the Mun and Minmus have been mostly explored, and the tech tree has been unlocked enough to commit to a Duna/Ike mission Primary goal is to land a team of Kerbals on every body in the solar system and return to Kerbin. Science collection is factored into mission architecture for the inner system to maximize return and tech tree unlock, but will likely scale back for the outer system as the tech tree becomes complete Missions will be structured to explore all moons within the respective sphere of influence during the trip. Minimum crew of 3 for ground operations on planets/moons Jool and Lindor missions will be crewed by 6, and Nara will be a crew of 12 Cinematics are filmed from my career save without the use of quick save, so there will be bad landings and screwed up burns that require intervention to save the crew/mission. Game Settings and Self-Imposed Rules "Revert Flight" is disabled. Quicksave limited use for kraken attacks and "final descent simulation" for atmospheric bodies. Difficulty is a blend of Medium, Kerbalism obviously, and a modified Probes Before Crew install that scales back science returns. Pre-requisite of probe missions to all bodies to unlock K.R.A.S.H simulation tool for designing landers. Eve, Duna, Laythe, and Nara will require a pre-requisite probe to land on the surface and collect atmospheric Science. Mod List Full List in the spoiler but I am highlighting a few for major features that drive the mission designs: Kerbalism: Radiation, Life Support, Part Reliability, etc. Cryo Engines/Tanks: Cryogenic fuel and engines. Boil-off needs to be factored into designs Mandatory RCS: no more overpowered reaction wheels, RCS now a bit more important for maneuvering Prologue: Minmus Editing of the videos improves as the series will progress, but here the first video of a Minmus mission. The video gives a brief glimpse of how kerbalism changes the gameplay. Future videos will have more of a cinematic feel with less of the HUD in many of the clips.

I've been playing out a potential abstract version of the game in my mind, taking into account some possible tech progression and exploration inventive elements that have been hinted. Let's assume there's no boring abstract system of farmable science points. Every tech "unlocks" automatically for you depending on three things: - if you did the science experiments for the tech - if you found / harvested the resources necessary - if your level of knowledge and discoveries is sufficiently advanced (every part could have hidden milestone triggers that unlock it) Let's also assume that we obtain useful information about the universe only through practical science (ground and space telescope, sending probes, doing experiments etc.). This information then allows us to design more complex successful missions. Let's also assume that the progression also favors unmanned before manned missions, as it should. And that kerbals need life support because manned missions are damn hard. And that there are good incentives to build space stations (science, mining asteroid resources, and orbital construction etc.) and colonies (science, discovery of planetary points of interest, transportation infrastructure, resource mining etc.). Let's assume that we need to build and upgrade the communications network. Let's assume we have to explore and exploit the Kerbolar system first, then investigate other stars, exoplanets, build the necessary knowledge and material infrastructure that allows us to design interstellar ships and send them hurling into space. Then we get there and start over. Let's also assume we take into account the long and slow process of prototyping, testing and iterative design. And the accidents. And the story / lore / mysteries / Easter eggs. Well, my worry is this: it's a damn huge amount of work even without any grinding! It makes me afraid for my adult and family life! Who is going to be able to do everything in this game, in a gratifying slow and methodical way, with all the difficulty settings and optional systems turned on? This game is going to take us years to go through. How is there going to be time to explore multiplayer features if we start with single player only? I really think multiplayer has to be baked in or directly linked with the single player adventure. I see no other way to put everything in this game and still allow players to try it all.

STARBOUND Introduction Oh boy, here we go again. I'm Misguided Kerbal, and here I am starting another mission report (hopefully we'll finish this one.) Anyway, I've been meaning to do a full JNSQ playthrough for quite a while now so I'm quite excited for this. This is going to be in JNSQ - sandbox mode, but with my own personal restrictions, as I really hate the grind of Career and Science mode and just want to do my own thing. All of this is my own interpretation, of course - though you will see strong inspiration from things such as BDB and Raptor9's craft catalog and the likes. So, what exactly are we doing here? Good question, imaginary voice in my head. The end goal - land a kerbal on every single body in the JNSQ system. We'll see how it goes. Restrictions Modlist Completed Missions Chapters Prelude Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15

I want KSP2 to allow me to relive the feeling I had when I first saw: - the Prometheus landing - Ad-Astra moon rover ride (before the pirates) - LV-426 derelict discovery (everything feels so dark, cold, stormy, the star so far away..) - Falcon Heavy twin booster landing - any IVA rocket take-off during which I just hope it doesn't blow up / IVA landing during which I look at the sensors and hear the proximity alarms and hope i don't crash: like this What space exploration feeling are you chasing (from real-life, movies, games, cinematics etc.)?

As a player since 2015, and a car enthusiast, I have always thought that rovers were useful for the robotic exploration of a celestial body, especially after the "breaking ground" dlc. Unfortunately, I have always had problems with drift with rovers especially when breaking, even on Kerbin, I can understand these problems on moons like Gilly which has very low gravity, but watching video of the Moon Rover traveling on a celestial body which has 1/6 of the Earth's gravity sprinting around and not drifting like on ksp. I was wondering, do you think that in ksp2 the system with which the wheels will interact with various terrain and gravity will be revisited? here some footage of the moon rover: (PS. sorry for my bad english)

Chapter One - The Setup (back in the saddle, let's see if I can stay on) Ever since 0.23.5 and phresh mems enticed me to check out KSP back in 2014, I've dreamed of doing what a lot if not nearly all of everyone who plays KSP has done, fulfilling a standard rite of passage: a mission to Duna. (I mean, the Mun or Minmus usually is the first rite of passage, but I did that in the demo before punching in my credit card details, and maybe just like in real life, it may be nice to go back to the Mun to stay, but it is such a limited horizon). I mean, it has to be a mission-MISSION. Like as in set the mission goals, design the architecture, engineer the crafts, yeet them into deep black and run with it. You know, like everyone else has done here, whether as part of a challenge, replicating one of the NASA DRMs, Zubrin's minimalist Direct or go full BSG, The Martian, one or the other. And having to watch the lot of you do all that, forum posts, Reddit posts, YouTube videos, seeing your blueprints and screenshots and gifs, leaves me with an itch that needs scratching. Duna is the usual milestone, again Mars analogue, but also because of what Duna is standing for in that rite of passage: going beyond Minmus orbit. Going beyond Kerbin. After over six years of playing the game. That isn't a bad thing at all--many players are content to just stick around in the Kerbin system, and can make an adventure, a life of it. But I'm a horizon kind of person. I'm the kid that stands on the beach, and wonders what lies beyond the place where the sea meets the sky. I've learned how to sail, but I've never really left the harbor. Never really put out into open ocean. Yeah, I've been around the block a couple of times. I never really did for over six years now, because every time I get something on the drawing board, something usually comes up. Usually a major update bump--goodbye mods compatibilty. Or I get sidetracked by a challenge (namely Apollo and Space Shuttle) which does not fit what I had in mind. Memory limitations in my older laptops. And especially real life. When I purchased KSP, I was early into law school. By the time I was doing the Shuttle Challenge, I was supposed to be studying for the bar exams, in a country where that is less a licensure exam, and more a hazing ritual. Either way, real life, game ennui, and the big resets of version updates is the air resistance to the booster launch of my KSP campaigns. It could also happen here and now, for all I know. But last year back in 1.9.x when the pandemic struck, I finally decided to run with it and stick with it. Finally get a Duna itch-scratcher running. Finally leave safe waters for the open ocean. (To save me the workload, I just sent everything back to square one--parts, progress, narratives, approaching KSP with a fresh mind and a clean slate, more or less.) Which I did, until real life caught up again mid-year, and I left things in suspension again. But the itch is still there. It's still there nagging at me and I wanna scratch it bad. So picking things up again, I wanted to run it, run past Minmus in a way where I felt like I had something to do, but it was still achievable without giving me a headache to create my own version of an interplanetary exploration program: First, I run it in Career mode, albeit a slightly easier one: I set the Funds rewards to 125% just so I could get to upgrading the facilities sooner (and could afford the bigger rockets earlier on), plus Stage Recovery so I wasn't burning as much Funds just getting to orbit. That way, the Science and Funds were sort of a limiter, but also a score. Mod it till I break. Second, it is quite modded, and I'll admit that there are three mods I felt made the game WAY easier going forward, and which, if not OP, at least one or two could still be tweaked so as not to grease the path forward: The LGG-resurrected Retrofuture, which I got solely (so far) for the ultra-low profile LFO engines, something like aerospike pancakes. They are unbalanced because they occur early in the tech tree compared to stock engines in the same class, they have mucho excellente atmo and vac ISP and power compared to stock engines in the same class, and I think they are relatively cheap for what they do. I don't know if LGG made a balance pass since the 1.9 compatibles. Getting the Dmagic and Interkosmos science mods, without any tech tree-adjusting mods. So same tech tree, but even more science squeezable per planet, biome, and situation. Add to that science gains from SCANSat and repeat missions using the Tarsier telescope mod, and at some point I do not have to worry about the tech tree ever again after the Mun, even without having to depend on pumping Science out of Mobile Labs. I also feel so dirty doing so. Finally, the Bon Voyage mod. This is the one mod that takes rovers to the OP level, more OP than any other automation or abstraction mod, maybe even more than MJ, because it makes biome science farming not only practical, but game-breakingly easy. No need to make a rocket Mun or Minmus biome hopper, when all that's needed is to land a rover packed with a scientist and science parts, find your biomes, and let the autopilot take them there. Practical also because it allows me to do other things while waiting for the rover to get there, streamlining the task of running a whole space program. Someone please bribe Squad to make it stock. Third, it wasn't just getting to Duna, but setting up a near-Kerbin space architecture that supports the entire mission, from running the business to afford the trip, to training the Kerbals so we're not landing idiots in tin cans, so on and so forth. Duna is just simply a part of the program, its crowning jewel (for now), but not its raison d'etre. Duna is a demonstration that the system can do it, within its constraints and logic. Maximum joy from minimum work. The complete opposite of a legal career. Fourth, I have a number of philosophies, desires, and goals for this. Less Duna direct, more Galactica. "If I got it, flaunt it (go high delta-V, high capacity, big boosters if necessary, orbital and surface construction using KIS, USI Konstruction and Global Construction)." My triumvarate of Minimize Vessel Count per scene/Minimize Parts Count per vessel/Minimize Workload on the field (which means I have the usual automation suites--MJ, TCA, GT, VVC/HLA, RMM, and thank God for live-configurable action groups). Take advantage of mods to minimize parts count and work, and maximize functions. Five, as much as possible, make it look sexy. And the kraken shall lie with the bugs, and they shall beat their 1.11s into 1.9s, and a 7th-gen i7 shall lead them. Also, I can't believe there is an i9 already, I am as green with envy as that guy. One of the consequences of this is that, for the first time ever, I haven't caught up with the KSP dev number arms race, where I hit the magic reset button after a version change. Although 1.10 and 1.11 added a lot of neat stuff I would like to have, and there are a number of new mods that have me salivating, in the end, I have all the core competencies in 1.9.x plus compatible mods, and I felt like I could skip the upgrades this time (especially with a few things still wonky). So all that follows here is current to 1.9.x, stock and compatible mods c. mid-2020 alike. And so with the preamble out of the way, let's dispense with the preliminaries on the road to the deep, deep black of space. x----------------------------------------------x EDIT FROM THE FUTURE: considering my later decision to go Elcano on Duna long-winded sigh, below is a screenshot of my GameData folder for accountability purposes.

Goal: Build a vehicle that is able to explore underwater sites. Try to dive as deep as possible. A badge will be awarded for participation on request (I won't send you one if you don't request it). Rules: No mods, no cheats. No using glitches (K-Drives, ZK-Drives, etc.) The sub must be launched from the KSC runway and into the water off the coast of the KSC. From there, you MUST travel by water to your dive site. Vehicle Classes (Choose 1): Submarine- must carry a crew of at least 1 kerbal (+5 pts) ROV- must be unmanned (+10 pts) MiniSub- must be under 10 tons (+15 pts) DSEV- must be able to exceed 500 m below sea level. (+20 pts) Depth Scores: 100 m: +25 pts 200 m: +30 pts 300 m: +35 pts 400 m: +40 pts 500 m: +45 pts ... and the list continues (by +5 points per 100 m) Submissions: Photos/Video submissions only please. Leaderboard: @ralanboyle mini ROV "Sub 1" reached a depth of 1092m Below sea level- 110 pts @Klapaucius mini-sub "Jacques" reached a depth of 1048m Below sea level -105 pts @dnbattley 5 ton mini-sub "Stratzen-Pellor" reached a depth of 971m Below sea level (claims ability to have infinite depth and range, but photo shows 971m Below sea level)- 95 pts Outliers (Used Glitches for Max Depth, or Below Ocean Floor): @Pds314 unnamed sub, would have been 300050 pts.

I tried searching for this on the internet and on this forum, but so far didn't find any discussions on the topic. So here's my story. Skip to the end of the post to see the weird polar caps. So, I recently installed the new KSP 1.9.1. I usually play with Kopernicus planet packs or with Sigma dimensions as stock game does not seem as challenging as it used to be. I usually play with 5 times the scale and 7 times the distance, but Kopernicus is not updated to 1.9.1 so far, so I decidet to play stock with visual/interface mods and no custom parts. I quickly found myself sending rovers to travel long distances on non-atmospheric bodies, even managed to circumnavigate Minmus and Ike, failing to do so with Dres as terrain is just too rough and the rover kept crashing. So then I decided to go to Laythe... (I can share the craft file, if this IMOAB-1 craft looks interesting to you. Goes 50m/s on Laythe, 60m/s on Kerbin, not very good at driving on the ground) I landed in the equatorial region and soon was on my way towards the north pole, making some stops on the way. It took me several hours of real time, but eventually I've reached latitude 80, and so there were the polar caps. Before this journey I didn't even remember if Laythe has them, Scatterer makes it impossible to determine from the map view. But yes, there was solid ground on my way. But it was quite not what I had expected. As you can see here, that looks... Pixelated. And on closer inpection it was even weirder. It was very flat, it ended in the ocean abruptly, there was no slope to drive on. I was able to push the boat onto is, I was glad I used the sharp nosecones, not the stubby ones. My polar expedition was on its way from that point, but I knew I just had to send in a rover from Kerbin to take more screenshots and just show everyone how weird this shore is. In the next picture you can see how this wall just goes down. It seems to go vertically all the way to the bottom of the ocean. And just look at how sharp those corners are. It's... Pixelated. So now I just really want to know if anyone knows the story behind this. Was it unfinished by the developers? Wat it left this way intentionally? Is it one of the easter eggs? Beacuse it's pretty big for an easter egg, the whole shore is like this. And I have never heard anyone talking about it, never have I seen anyone visit this shore in a YouTube video. Maybe I didn't look for it to well. To me this place just feels unfinished and weird. Laythe is by far my favourite place in the KSP, and you've seen screenshots, you know why I love it. So if anyone has noticed this before, I would like to hear your response and your speculation/information on why this exists the way it is.

THEOROD KERMAN'S MISSION LOG: Y58D311 - 3H15M This mission may look like a simple tourist run, but the reasons below will explain why this is anything but. Jerdrin Kerman, a board member for Probodobodyne Inc., paid for us to take him to Laythe orbit. Even without getting on and off the surface, flying there and back home is no easy feat. We need to pick up three other kerbalnauts (two scientists and a pilot) who are going to Pol in a ring station. One of five of the same model, which will orbit all of Jool's moons. One in Laythe orbit Two on their way (one to Pol, one to Tylo) Two not yet launched (launch date depending on budget at transfer windows) This is only the beginning of a new series of missions. So far, kerbalkind has set foot on all but one of Jool's moons. If you haven't guessed already, it's Tylo. Mission Control had warned us that it's the size of Kerbin without the atmosphere, so sending a plane to the surface is out of the question. Getting on and off the surface is also a challenge, but that's for later. Right now, Mission Control is focused on an orbital reconnaissance mission around Tylo - as well as rendezvousing with another vessel in that orbit. That is what this mission is for. Below is the current crew roster for the Anubis I, a docking-capable Poseidon SSTO. CURRENT ANUBIS I CREW ROSTER NAME LEVEL (AS OF Y58D311) SPECIALTY THEOROD KERMAN 4 PILOT TED KERMAN 4 SCIENTIST MAURIE KERMAN 4 ENGINEER JERDRIN KERMAN 0 TOURIST Taking off early in the morning from the KSC. Us in Minmus orbit 11 days later. We had to stop to refuel. Our monopropellant tanks are filled to a little less than half capacity, but Maurie's still complaining that we need to lose the weight. Though I myself was skeptical about the levels as well, Wernher Von Kerman told us that we needed to dock with two stations at Jool, and we won't need to make more with the ISRU. We're now in high orbit of Kerbin, awaiting our interplanetary maneuver node. We expect to arrive at Duna's SOI for an Ike refueling in 1 year and 83 days from now. When that's over, we'll fly to Jool and refuel on Pol. By then, Pinky Finger Station - the ring station going to Pol - would already be in Pol orbit with the crew waiting for us. Our plane's head count will then increase to seven before we descend on the surface to refuel. After that, we're kind of stuck on what to do afterwards. Should we: Pol refuel --> Tylo orbit --> Laythe orbit --> Pol refuel --> HOME Pol refuel --> Laythe orbit --> Tylo orbit --> Pol refuel --> HOME Basically, should we orbit Laythe first or Tylo? This is a 26-year-old rover named Apocalypse on the surface of Tylo. Named so because Tylo is like a lifeless Kerbin; an apocalypse, if you may. We're also sending a manned (but empty) rover to Tylo's surface, but that's another story. Ultimately, our end game is a spaceplane that can refuel itself and dispatch a reusable lander down to Tylo's surface. However, that's for much, much later. For now, let's see what we're dealing with from a safe orbit. Just like with the decades-long Neptune missions to Laythe, and the Pluto saga to Eeloo before that, it will take years of research, trial and error, and persistence. Long ago, nobody had any confidence we could get an airplane to Laythe and back safely. Nowadays, spaceplanes have become the standard go-to craft for planets with larger solar orbital radii than Kerbin's. Heck, Lasel, Bill, and Val - the first crew to return from Eeloo (after Bill and Val got stuck) - are going to Duna in a Dirtblood right now. I know we can do this; it's just a matter of time. Any and all help is welcome, and wish us luck.

Welcome everyone ! In this thread I'll review my (second) take on the famous STS Challenge. My first participation was more than a year ago, and I'm starting a new one, which shall include many things I've learned about building rockets since then. I'm focusing on modules integration, packaging solutions and good-looking contraptions more than trying to be as realistic as possible. There is no mods in this sandbox but Chatterer. This might be pic heavy because I want to describe every part of the first flight to show how the craft handle. Album list on imgur : STS 1 : Deploying 40t. payload STS 2 : 6 Geostationnary relays STS 2b : Recovering the 40t. payload STS 3 : Téléscopâté on solar orbit ! STS 4 : High altitude crew rescue STS 5 : Minmus Space-Station : Propulsion Module STS 6 : Hab Module STS 7 : Science Module STS 8 : Second Science Module, Station Complete ! STS Minmus 1 : First steps STS Moho-Duna because why not STS Duna Bis : 2 Shuttles + Outpost The spacecraft is named Sh(uttle)Or(biter)Pa(ck), it is a combination of many improvements I had to make to my previous shuttles. ShOrPa (Standard) main features are : _1.5 Mk3 bay & Mk3 ramp, front bay is facing ground to use drills or dump stuff on surface. _SSTO capacity. _Low TWR with only 4 Nukes (140+t. empty), +5000dV. _Fuel tanks and engines are modulable if missions requires higher thrust (Tylo?). Orbiter main features : _Total mass is 1065t. (without cargo). _2x6 Kickback SRB clusters (1000dV). _6+1 Vectors (2500dV) + 4 Rapiers to assist lift-off. Here is a post which shows a few details of the design : STS 1 / 1b : Launch Launchpad : Ignition & lift-off ! SRB Sep : Burning to raise Ap : External tank separation : Final orbit 150x150 : Payload separation (40t. dummy tanks) : Re-entry burn, quite hot ! Coming down on KSC, just at the horizon : Heavy flare to kill orbital velocity (max G during mission was only 4.8): Turn around to line up on runway : Final flare : Parachutes : Landing :

ok so i sent 3 kerbals on a one way deep space mission to explore i have the near future tec mod instaled so for power they have a fusion reactor and a fule recycler but it has ither the reactor provides just a tiny bit to little power or heat. so I have an emergency solar array installed on it so i am wondering what have any of you done thats similar?

W.I.P. ver. 1.3.1. First part of a exploration Vessel from the NASA. Nautilus Exploration Starsystem for travel. Command Modul : Reactor : Tank Modul : Atomic Engine : Complete Vessel

This aspect has been extricated from the necrophobic STS discussion and the like. Makes no sense to go on shooting a dead horse, but obviously some people get alot of pleasure out of it. So let them continue to live in the past, antiquated policies and luditic ambitions. This is a thread for the forward looking. In a past life we had the flexible although somewhat limited STS system which took part in repair of satellites, assembly of ISS and finally its no more, for better and worse. The ISS has a robotic arm and has involved itself in assembly . . . . . but it sterically hindered and its function and inertia limits its use in other occupations. So the question is whether NASA has a viable plan for a space factory or assembly station. I think that before you can build a station of that type you need to decide where its going to be. But we here in KSP are not limited by what any space agency thinks, since the powers-that-be (rattling the moderators cage ) endowed each of us with a brain, its best we put it to our own use and create. And as creators and artist we will tolerate the failings of each other but accept the critiques as a means of communicative growth. But the argument does have to be constrained by what is currently feasible. So for example we could could say build a launch pad in say Boca-Chica for that 50 kT rocket (toasting everything within a kilometer), but we currently cannot launch a fusion powered rocket, so that we cannot argue, place factory in polar orbit because i have a 'god'-mode drive. Lets premise the discussion with a global 'god' commandment that we all can agree on. That progress in space exploration is the target, manned when its appropriate or of benefit, and unmanned at other times. So that neither are we going to restrict one for the other or vice versa. Part 1. Physical Basis I want to use a kind of use a quantum perspective on Earth, we have to argue from a spatial point of view that Earth is a particle with an infinite number of dimensions which define its state, the same argument can be made about the moon. And we need to perform operations on both. If we are to compare it to an atom, the mass being the nucleus and we are electrons or photons that are being effected by its various parameters, depending on the operation. Within the dimensions are qualities (e.g. mu, axial tilt, atmosphere, . . . . .) all defined by dimensions. The reason I want to describe the earth this way is because its not a simple planet rotating on a axis perpendicular to its orbit about the sun so that depending the operation we can select a vector in that space and operate on it to see what happens (so for instance you can use a rotational reference frame, cartesian, change of basis, hamiltonian, etc). The structure is important but details are not until you want to use one then you fabricate the dimensions you want and create vectors). So for instance to assemble a certain set of functions are going to describe how you get information (mass, energy, operations .. . . people) from the Earth to the assembly point and the second how you get mass from the assembly point to an escape. In doing this we can define the energy required to create a particle and then to expel a particle along a desired vector (and all that the expulsion requires). Because of its extended dimensionality and because of this we are sometimes using complex spatial vectors in multiple reference frames. But the desire ulitimately to cross all these frames out and have an orbit to Mars, the Asteroid belt, Jupiter within the common inertial plane of the solar system (we don't have to worry about the galaxy). The math is very complex and I am not going to bore the abstract discussion with that, but just to say there is no perfect plane to go everywhere at everytime. I think everyone already knows this, but its not simply planar problem it is a 4 dimensional problem with other parallels(momentum, acceleration, dM/dt, etc). The broad definition allows us to compute on all operations define local outcomes create a change vector and move to a different system fluidly. Again details are not needed just the framework of testing various models. So the summary here is this. The Earth is a base of information, energy is required to project that into space. In our handwaving dimensional system there are three points. 1. a complex dimensional point denoted QSP-basis, its on the earth, 2. Mission basis, its a facility in space, this is the place were individual missions begin after all components are assembled 3. destination-basis a variable by which you want to go. There are two aspects of this model that are subject to change. 3 does not change, for example the variable Mars is always were mars will be. Once you designate Mars as the destination you, the global operator, cannot change where Mars is. We can dicker over a landing site on Mars, but that is something of submission specific details and for the sake our argument it outside of this thread and in another thread 'Exosystemic Space Stations'. So the concept here is that we have some control over (1) we can manipulate in real time (where we launch from, how much mass, and when within launch window) and likewise we can move (2) anywhere we want but it must be in our planetary system. And so the complexity of the potentials is immediately apparent. Part 2. Logical basis To frame the problem I will create the Query Space Agency .. .QSA, which is of course on Earth, where it is on Earth doesn't matter, but its not at a pole it could be in Russia, Ecuador or Argentina. QSA then has mission objectives. Mars is the default, Moon is a strong second, Asteroid belt is a third, NE-Asteroids are a collective, Venus is an option and Mercury tails the list. Each of these on the list have an ideal dV, which can only be defined in context. To get a feel how part one is essential. For instance lets argue the amount of dV required to get any where in the Solar system is X and that is the minimum required. From that point of view the potential is always realized from the lowest LEO possible and in some case LEO may not be achieved (point 2 is expeditiously removed on your trip to pluto). That is to say, while you are still have notable positive radial velocity remant from your lauch you burn most of the dV required to reach your destination. Ultimately this can be done from the lowest LEO and extracts the most energy from the fuel that the craft gains. Note that we switch to a rotational coordinate system to define radial velocity diagram for the rocket and this allowed us to maximize the Hamiltonian (Hl, lets call it the energy swap thingy KE---> PE KE-PE = SPE). The point we define as the basis is what . . . . . .it evolved during the burn becoming the basis at the end of the burn which the Hl could be predicted for the trip to the LEO, then change of basis and out of the solar system. We could then theoretically just point any rocket at any target in space, fire to lowest dV and we would have the lowest. Actually no, this violates the premise of the argument . . .we do not have a god-mode drive, or a god-mode drag ablation system, god-mode thrust, god-mode visceral fortitude for manned missions. Consequently the time spent in total vertical motion accelerating and fighting drag would consume more dV than making a tangential turn and burning along the tangent outward. This is trivial right? Not exactly, the two statement justify the commencement of missions distal to (1) at some location (2) where drag is not an issue (if you have a craft that is very bulky) and where the burn initiates always along the tangent. The counter argument is why we don't launch all mission from this 'sweetspot' in space, and the answer is most current missionswill have lower specific energy requirement than the sweet spot and can manage within the bulk maximum of primary. Thus (2) by definition is a secondary mission initiation site. In the same way returning an astronaut from the ISS can be seen as part of a different mission than his launch to ISS. So by the logic we can suggest there is a point in space (2) whereby for some manmade objects that are assembled from multiple launches of 1 (cost/risk) is a lower cost/risk than the most efficient launch from earth. The absurd argument is this, we have a function called an 'massive Aerogel' (mass as in huge manifold) in which we are going to use the Aerogel to land something on Mars. But the manifold needs to be formed, so we have a facility in orbit that, say forms the Aerogel and places it on the martian ship, the martian ship takes off and it bounces around on the surface of Mars (what it does on Mars we dont care, like SpaceX launching the fully formed vessel is our mission complete). Anti-god-mode restrictions tell us that we cannot form the Aerogel at Mars and you cant launch the Aerogel rom terra. Part 3. Decision basis. So then we list out all the possible (2) points that can be used for all potential missions inside of our (1->2) basis (contains all missions that are too high for direct, bulky to go direct, or massive to be launched from earth) The minimum dV requiement of each of these is defined along with fuel requirement of crew rotations, station assembly requirements .. . . . .and we get a spatial manifold around Earth at any given time that has one or more minimum. This means we could at some medium future point have several points. Part 4. Evolving (U) exceptional basis (4). The exceptional basis gives us new parameters (4) that we can use for change functions. Lets take an absurd argument. Today every amount of fuel but not power must come from Earth (excepting solar wind, photon push, cannae drives and oberth effects), at somepoint say J2040 we now have power that comes from an asteroid with a comet inside that has undergone system capture (although we care where it is in our system, we don't need to know exactly where it is to create a infinite dimensional state vector for it that can be operated upon, the details can be applied at convenience). This then includes the capture. So for instance the body crosses into the planetary system and then there are operations to capture it and exploit it. Then there are operations to associate its state with other states by association vectors. In associating the exceptional state with all the other (2) states we then begin to reoptimize (2) and indirectly (1) to take advantage of (4), so that (4) and (2) can change (3s never changes since its a target not a waypoint, in this since they are always changing but we never change them). So this is the framework for future technology in space, we work in space for a time and a benefit of this is that the total required-power metric decreases and operations evolve in response to this. The counter argument to this it that exception basis evolves and is not current. This is important to the creative argument, what it means is that any fabrication that assumes that the exception basis is current and not dU4/dt is just like god-mode thrust; its a violation of the constraints. This is not Star Trek you cannot create a transgalactic warp-drive by using Wesley Crusher's best friend experimenting in an engineering lab overnight to suddenly escape the borg. dU4/dt also means that there is a cost involved in the change of state that needs to be applied to other associated systems and that the faster dU4/dt evolves the higher the cost in resources to other aspects. That means that developing an exceptional basis creates a necessary trade off of resources. Here is an example, suppose you are using Space X to supply the transfer and load requirements to an interplanetary shuttle that drops stuff at mars then heads back and reloads. Although you can for instance extract argon from comets its not very efficient and most of the fuel goes to Earth, suddenly now there is a comet in orbit in which a huge amount of hydrogen and oxygen can be produced, so now what you are doing is hauling empty hydrogen tanks back from Mars, but still you need argon gas to route. You can convert to magnesium but theres a cost. In addition to initiate the new system there has to be tanks shipped from Earth, and your argon supply drops off, so the hydrolox tanks build up in Mars orbit. Secondarily manned resources on your station are shifted to the comet and equipment coming from earth is also shifted to the comet. So for a time, as a space tug, your operations slow down as with all operations on your basis (2x). In addition that asteroid or comet is a (3) that is converted to (4) and that conversion has a resource cost before it even reaches the system. This means that missions (2->3x) need to be cancelled and diverted to 2->33->4. The thread is long enough so I will just add a few statements. Although I am still working on the details of how best to use ION drives from Earth orbit, I foresee a best set of circumstances from LEO/MEO. By this I don't mean crazy low LEO, it has to be far enough up where the Sun covers most of the angular displacement * time of a craft in orbit over time. Particular with Solar +prograde exit vectors the burn optimum is beyond termination the Earth this means to expose the craft while burning the craft has to be significantly high or have lightweight and efficient batteries. The mass efficiency comes from the differential between chemical Ve (4700) and ION drive Ve (>30000) that, in essence you do not want to use chemical reaction energy propellants to push an ION drive with bulky solar panels. The point however I want to make that it is possible to use ION thrusters during most of the orbit without loosing dV as long as certain parameters are preserved (IOW not a continous spiral) and also it might be faster to do this than a spiral. So that even a weakly powered ION drive has some modifyers that can get it out of Earth orbit faster (for example using highest ISP thrust for some operations and lowest ISP thrust for others, such as at the rmin in an orbit or when making the final kick. The direction of thrust can be varied to keep the rmin optimal and even reversed at highest possible ISP (or even a photon drive). OTOH the orbitally-static stations are attractive in the sense that we can always have them in a state that is optimal for most outgoing vectors. The problem that I don't like about these is they generally are 4000dV vectors at Ve of 5000 or lower. I cannot see ION drives doing this thing since their best benefit is in the kick from the LEO/MEO Earth to its destination, and in actuality tolerates super-Hohmann transfers that markedly shorten time. But there are time constraints on some missions so crawling out of L/MEO to L2 may be the best means of doing this, and certainly saves alot of dV on ION-IP shuttles. The problem is that for an ION drive once you are at L2, you are no longer required, and if PL need to use L2 to use your thrust is really not of a benefit in the PL to L2 transfer. It could be of some benefit, perhaps a smaller number of kicks where solar (minimal) and ion contribute to the kick over say 2 days. The simple problem is that ION drives would be really really useful if they had more thrust and of course that requires a power supply that we don't have. If we keep in mind that energy maximization is all about dV @ V this means that if orbital minimum is a 6531 m its V = 7812 m/s and 5523 m/s at 13063 km. For each amount of fuel burnt at gives a change of energy of 7812/dV at 7812 and 5523/dV at 5523. This goes to 12000E/dv at and somewhat less than 11500E/dv for the starting 5523. Again so there is basically a loss of 1500E/dv by doubling the radius. Thats a heavy tax to pay in addition to circularization costs. But it increase the burn span by almost 80 degrees. Of course as the orbit expands you issues with timing of optimal burns that cannot be circumvented so it might be wise to thrust up the Drives by changing the grid voltage and increasing amps. The final comment involves the shuttle and its potential application to the problem that has been de-optioned. Most of the gateways are programs and are fixed in nature, therefore if program flaws occur there is essentially little change options. With a shuttle based assembly the assembly states can change, since the initial state X is only in a place where shuttle can reach, if the X assembly point then spawns other Xs the shuttle is no longer required, however inefficient it might be its functionality could be leveraged into other states, and those states would make the shuttle obsolete, which is desired.

hint to what i am using for planets nice pack @Gameslinx welcome to THE space program idea i have commited too a sandbox, youtube silent series of my latest endevours (UNCUT) (nope OBS hates the new PC so imigur all the way!) instaid of pictures which i dont understand how on the current forums the goals: to explore laythe for other life forms to allow for long term exploration goals like a long time in LKO stress test my new PC (yes this is a goal) test new means of space stuff backstory, a long time ago the early perhistoric kerbals, looked up they seen purple green and red they wondered what they were after which kobal communications were set up the smartest relocated to the peninsula that we now call the KSC these group of clever kerbals had an idea which the smartest of which robert koddard created a rocket using the pendulum effect. it failed then later he tried putting the engine nozzle at the bottom it worked but got unstable while transonic being coined by gene kerman, this was a great leap forward but the kerbals hadnt realised wings would help at first they tried wings at the top it failed and toppled over at 200 k/s (keters per second) this was in 100 KD in 110 KD after 10 years of intense kresearch and krevelopment they found out that wings at the top will stabalise the craft comeing into the atmosphere but when going out it wont work so they put wings on the same rocket at the bottom it reached mach 1.2 and exploded the kerbals were confused so a smart kerbal his nickname lord kerbin decided to launch a rocket himself with a thermomiter aboard and the heat was very hot 1000 degrees kelcius then it exploded so he wrote these words: "if we put a material which will ablate away through means of disapearing through heat we will have a sucsessful rocket" they attempted the change and suprise suprise it failed the SRB failed (yes i see you smiling @Plecy75) they took 5 years in working out cause of failure. they gave up and launched again it worked this time which is the same moment bob got scared and shouted "WHAT IF IT GOES BOOM!" this invisaged jeb to quickly sketch a "boom stopper" coined by bob of course, a piece of fabric designed to CREATE DRAG gene was furious saying IT NEEDS TO BE AERODYNAMIC HONESTLY JEB WHY jeb tested it out without any ground clearence of course he was in trouble from the KSC owner however it worked so the punisment wasnt needed then jeb asked why not put me in a tin can everyone thought that jeb was crazy this is the continuation of that story...