Jump to content

Finally - particular wanted news - announced for 1.1


Anthlon
 Share

Recommended Posts

If I'm not mistaken Remotetech does that already

You still have to click "exec node" on the flight computer, and what they're discussing is having it execute simply because it's there, which I endorse, too.

I like RT as it is from a gameplay perspective; I understand it's unrealistic, but I like it. I don't have many opinions on the stock mechanics yet, I'll do my best to refrain from forming them until I actually play it.

It does seem nice, tho. I like the DSN idea. I'd still like a flight computer, even if simplified. I'd like additive ranges and dish cones. Maybe the RT group uses the stock as foundation and builds just those bits on top of it, plus signal delay (which I'm not too fond of personally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there really any point to probes as it stands. There are far fewer problems to overcome simply sending a manned vessel. You get more science opportunities and with this update you won't have to worry about relays.

Kerbonaut recruitment costs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, space is easy. It's when you get near a solid body that things get difficult.

EDIT: ...or a star or a gas giant or whatever, but compared to empty space, those are all pretty much solid anyway.

Those solid bodies always ruining my missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Payload fraction in the toy solar system is ridiculously easy-mode. 100 tons is nothing.

It's not just the weight, but a giant relay dish would act like a giant air scoop on takeoff which would make it a real challenge to get into space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the weight, but a giant relay dish would act like a giant air scoop on takeoff which would make it a real challenge to get into space.

Plus I don't think even a 5m Fairing from the SpaceY mod would help cover that up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, space is easy. It's when you get near a solid body that things get difficult.

EDIT: ...or a star or a gas giant or whatever, but compared to empty space, those are all pretty much solid anyway.

Nup space time is way harder. It takes closely rotating neutron stars to even put a ripple in space time. Matter is the soft squishy stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the weight, but a giant relay dish would act like a giant air scoop on takeoff which would make it a real challenge to get into space.

Nah, nah, you launch it pointing DOWNWARDS. Use the dish's back as the top of your fairing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, cool. But unfortunately, it does not add much to the "endgame". I still wonder what to do once I have opened all tech and visitied all planets. Currently, since the release of 1.0 I am still with largely Mk2 parts, taking my time. However, this means that my motivation to just restart a career will be not very high.

The colonisation mod is very attractive and I wish Squad would pool their resources into something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosetta is ONE example (comet, BTW). How much control did they exercise after Philae was released to guide it down? Right, none at all. They picked a location, and sent a command for the spacecraft to initiate "landing" (that implies a level of control it lacked) with that as the target area, nothing more. Current probes are becoming more, not less autonomous. Rovers that can avoid obstacles, for example. This trend will only continue. New Horizons is another example, while "remote controlled," the spacecraft is programmed well in advance because of the time lag involved. Direct control is impossible once any lag equals an inability to function safely. Any "remote control" not done in real time is "programming."

You seem to be arguing the past, not me.

Rosetta / Philea is the most recent example and whole remote landing process remained terrifying for those in control and the landing didn't exactly go smoothly.

The same is true for many other probes we've launched, Mars for example has had 13 "landings" . . . . 3 of which smashed into the surface at high speed, 1 burned up during reentry and 2 landed but never came back online. An ~50% success rate. Success has generally improved over time, partly due to better technology but mainly due to the data gained and lessons learned from the failures.

We've a long way to go before probes are intelligent enough to pull of flawless high speed maneuvers in complete radio silence in an only partially defined environment.

Even the maneuvers that are currently pre-programmed are adjusted and tweaked by mission control right up to the last possible second!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the weight, but a giant relay dish would act like a giant air scoop on takeoff which would make it a real challenge to get into space.

Dishes that size could be modular and much lower mass than is required on Earth's surface, though it would be a challenge - but why put huge dish antennas in space when the same result can be had by building them on the surface of the planet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosetta / Philea is the most recent example and whole remote landing process remained terrifying for those in control and the landing didn't exactly go smoothly.

The same is true for many other probes we've launched, Mars for example has had 13 "landings" . . . . 3 of which smashed into the surface at high speed, 1 burned up during reentry and 2 landed but never came back online. An ~50% success rate. Success has generally improved over time, partly due to better technology but mainly due to the data gained and lessons learned from the failures.

We've a long way to go before probes are intelligent enough to pull of flawless high speed maneuvers in complete radio silence in an only partially defined environment.

Even the maneuvers that are currently pre-programmed are adjusted and tweaked by mission control right up to the last possible second!

And pretty much this.

The challenge of course from a design standpoint is how you simulate this where there's a clear benefit to being in direct communications with your probe, and an appropriate disincentive to letting them operate in radio silence - and simulate this in a way that's simple and easy for newer players to grasp.

Side note, as I noted in the main article, I'm sorting through all of the feedback in these threads and discussions - the feedback has been excellent, and has proven very helpful in moving forward the design. So thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good! Now we just need NASA to replace the Deep Space Network with satellites so this feels realistic

ESA sort-of does it, only by replacing radio-based ESTRACK with laser-based satellites of European Data Relay System. But only sort-of - EDRS won't be used for probe telemetry but rather as a data link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, cool. But unfortunately, it does not add much to the "endgame". I still wonder what to do once I have opened all tech and visitied all planets. Currently, since the release of 1.0 I am still with largely Mk2 parts, taking my time. However, this means that my motivation to just restart a career will be not very high.

The colonisation mod is very attractive and I wish Squad would pool their resources into something like this.

I agree. Better/more end game gameplay is a better idea, specially now that some new players seem to look at the end of the tech tree as the end of the game

Rosetta / Philea is the most recent example and whole remote landing process remained terrifying for those in control and the landing didn't exactly go smoothly.

The same is true for many other probes we've launched, Mars for example has had 13 "landings" . . . . 3 of which smashed into the surface at high speed, 1 burned up during reentry and 2 landed but never came back online. An ~50% success rate. Success has generally improved over time, partly due to better technology but mainly due to the data gained and lessons learned from the failures.

We've a long way to go before probes are intelligent enough to pull of flawless high speed maneuvers in complete radio silence in an only partially defined environment.

Even the maneuvers that are currently pre-programmed are adjusted and tweaked by mission control right up to the last possible second!

And how many players crash in KSP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosetta had to pick a place to land on an asteroid with unknown parameters. This was not programmed previous to launch. We are not in the 20th century any more.

you mean Rosetta (the probe) choosed the landing place for Philae automaticly? No.. all landing places were choosed manualy.

There was a whole group for finding a good site... http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/54468-selecting-a-landing-site-for-rosettas-lander-philae/

Every steering command is being send to rosetta for every change of orbit. You can say Rosetta has a "driver". Thats the Job of the Spacecraft Operations Manager

Edited by WeirdCulture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great discusion guys, but keep it together, isn't that great, that finally somebody from development start looking this way too? Be happy about it :-) no point to argue about technics of runninig when we are just before first step. Remember how many changes went through before we had todays science gathering?

But also, thanks all for opinions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...