Incredibly Incoherent Ramble about Colonies

[LittleBitMore]

I've been so excited about colonies for such a long time, so I wanted to go spend a decent chunk of time talking about them and the possibilities I see for them. Please note most of this is speculation and what I'd prefer ideally, and I'll probably mention whenever something is confirmed.

 

I. Core Function of a Base/Colony (EDIT: Most parts of this section have been confirmed to be in KSP2 after I wrote this-- thank you, Nate Simpson!)

For most of us, when we think of a base or colony in KSP2 we think of the ridiculously precariously positioned orange glass domes atop large metallic poles on an atmospheric planet around another star, as described in the KSP2 trailer. I love this concept, but I want to break down the core functions of a base and colony to see what they might look like.

First of all I want to provide distinction between a KSP1 base, a KSP2 base, and a colony. In my ideal mind, "bases" that we put on planets like KSP1 will mean nothing like a KSP2 base or colony. A KSP1 base would be an assortment of ship parts with landing legs attached. Ideally KSP2 bases and colonies won't be anything like this, and they both use base parts.

"But wait," you ask, "what's the difference between a base and a colony now?"

For me I'd find it best if bases were described as anything made of base parts, and colonies were bases that could make more kerbals and base parts for the colony, i.e. sustainable and containing a colony.

If you wanted to make a simple mining factory on Minmus that sent back pods of Mintium to Kerbin, you might not have a need for kerbals at all, and ergo it might be a nonsustainable construction, contianing no kerbals. It just mines, builds ore pods, and launches them. This obviously would not count as a colony, but rather a base. A fairly lackluster base, but still a base.

However, let's say you had a metropolis of dozens of biodomes on Duna. It mines, filters water and oxygen out of the rocks (or whatever life support Kerbals would need), puts ore into a massive VAB and base construction facility, AND it has the capability to make more base parts and attach them onto the end. This obviously would be a colony-- it can create more space for the kerbals, feed them, and let them reproduce. However it would also be a base, as a base would be a sort of umbrella term in this case.

In my ideal world, a base's core function can be whatever, but it needs to be made out of base parts. It matters not whether it has kerbals in it.

A colony's core function would be a subcategory of bases that let kerbals reproduce, so they may split up amongst other craft that the colony also creates.

II. Kerbals and Colonies

The first kerbal-related point I want to address is reproduction. Kerbals will reproduce somehow in colonies, and it's likely we'll need something to let them reproduce in colonies.

I've seen a lot of debate on whether life support should be added or not. I'm still not entirely sure on what the consensus would be, because I don't think colonies should require nothing, but I also don't want them to require a lot of stuff.

If you made them require nothing to reproduce, then I'd probably be against that, because then you'd just need to set up a random biodome on a planet and use that to fill ships full of kerbals if you lacked an easy way to just hire more astronauts. Plus KSP2 has been confirmed to have a truckload of new resources, and it would be a shame if none went directly towards kerbals themselves.

However I also don't want Kerbals to need oxygen, food, water, unobtanium, Mintium, and several other prerequisites to reproduce. That's just mad. I also don't want ships themselves to require any more than electricity for life support, but colonies definitely need something.

I have no idea what kind of stuff they would need. Perhaps they need some sort of snack, but that would also raise the question as to why they don't always need snacks. The KSP2 devs have one big question ahead that they need to solve, and I hope they choose wisely.

However, kerbals aren't just there for reproduction. Right?

For the expenses of huge biodomes and kerbal-related infrastructure they need to have purposes more than making more kerbals and planting more flags. In KSP we have things like laboratories and surface samples, which are great and all, but a new variable has just been added to the game, one so big that kerbals may become obsolete:

Bases.

Currently automated bases have every bit as usefulness as colonized bases, except the making more kerbals part. From what I've seen so far kerbals don't work or build or help with bases at all, which I do not think is a good idea. I think engineer kerbals specifically should help with bases a lot. Let me show some ideas for one moment:

Engineers: help speed up build processes of everything and improve resource mining

Scientists: help speed up base R&D more (will elaborate in a future section)

Pilots:

...wait, what should pilots do?

And here's where a bajillion dollar idea struck me: we redo a bit of commnet stuff.

Currently commnet would work for probes like this: if the connection to the KSC is good enough, you can control probes. BUT WHAT IF, instead of the KSC, you could also connect to pilots in spacecraft or at bases? Pilots would then have a use at bases obviously, as if you weren't easily able to connect to the KSC, you could always just connect to Duna Autopilot Base, aka DAB, and use that as your remote control.

Bases with pilots could act as extra DSN stations!

In addition, if a base had a scientist on board and an R&D lab or something, perhaps transmitting data can also go to that base instead of the KSC?

Those are my ideas on the relations between Kerbals, Bases, and Colonies.

III. Delivery and Automation

I think, at some point, Star Theory confirmed the existence of delivery missions that can be run autonomously without interaction to some extent. I'd like to elaborate more on what my hopes and dreams for this system is.

Core concept: a programming language. Whether it be a simple VPL like Scratch, or a more complex written language like Python or kOS, I'd love to see some way to give craft the ability to write, edit, and run code. An example would be slapping a Computato 3000 onto the side of a booster, and when it detaches, it will begin its script and boostback to land at the KSC.

Alternatively it could be something more simple than even a VPL, where you select the pickup location, the dropoff location, and actions to complete at either side.

A major issue I see with this is the physics range. Said booster would attempt to land on the KSC, from which the parent rocket is already tens of kilometers from. In KSP, the physics range is 2.5km(?). Sure, we can always increase it, but when is too much physics range? Is this a decent solution at all?

Something that could be done is improving the non-physics warp, which they have confirmed they are doing to some extent, and have that also run the scripts and detect landings. They're already adding the ability for engine burns to be warpable, which means this could be the near future.

For automation to function properly, they have 2 options: increase or make unlimited the physics range, or have advanced warp features. Or a combo of the two, as these aren't mutually exclusive features.

Such additions could make MONUMENTAL changes for KSP as a whole, and I would elaborate further but my fingers are really killing me and ergo I shall cease typing.

IV. Coming Soon

Be sure to remind me to continue this every now and again, as otherwise I will forget.

Edited January 29, 2021 by LittleBitMore
Section III added, Section 1 partially confirmed

[jastrone]

i tink bases that are made with parts would be what the colony is built upon. so that you would kinda need a base to make a colony.  i also tink normal spacestations and bases should have more use such as a way to generate money or maybe even be able to fabricate small parts. 

[The Aziz]

Bases need resupply missions to work and rotate the crew. Extract/product/research stuff only to have it taken to other place where it's needed.

Colonies are self sufficient and are capable of reproduction - and allow rapid expansions to accommodate new colonists - so no rotation is needed. Extract/product/research stuff for their own needs.

That's where I see the difference.

Now, pilots, maybe they're not needed on a colony per se, there's still someone needed to fly those ships/planes out there, drive those rovers. I imagine pilots to have some kind of advantage over probes - as, technically, in ksp1 as soon as you unlock okto2, pilots become nearly obsolete. (Not in my game though). I simply wouldn't use probes for everything that moves, I need these little green aliens with the stick.

[NutellaSandwich]

7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

I imagine pilots to have some kind of advantage over probes

Probes having failure rates? I'd imagine that the failures, instead of completely taking the probe out of action, only disabling the part. Something like "The reaction wheel isn't working perfectly, wait, who put gum in there? " this would mean that the reaction wheel inside the probe (if there is one) stops working, and all others on the craft are cut in effectiveness by 50%. This could be fixed by a kerbal ( all systems would be restored) or by a module on the craft that doesn't perfectly restore the broken module, but can do a thing. The advantage of having a pilot is that, they don't break down ( usually).

[Dr. Kerbal]

Could you make a meat collie by like putting a colony next to a colony?

Mega colony.

[Davi SDF]

wait, aren't the big pods able of controlling a probe? Like the Mark 1-3? (i think that's what's called, can't remember)

[shdwlrd]

13 hours ago, Davi SDF said:

wait, aren't the big pods able of controlling a probe? Like the Mark 1-3? (i think that's what's called, can't remember)

We can't draw parallels on advanced functions for parts between KSP 1&2. Different studios are developing the different games. One dev may think this function is fine for whatever part, where the other may think it doesn't need say function, we're going to use this part instead.

[Davi SDF]

17 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

We can't draw parallels on advanced functions for parts between KSP 1&2. Different studios are developing the different games. One dev may think this function is fine for whatever part, where the other may think it doesn't need say function, we're going to use this part instead.

I see, thanks!

[Nate Simpson]

On 1/24/2021 at 7:07 PM, LittleBitMore said:

First of all I want to provide distinction between a KSP1 base, a KSP2 base, and a colony. In my ideal mind, "bases" that we put on planets like KSP1 will mean nothing like a KSP2 base or colony. A KSP1 base would be an assortment of ship parts with landing legs attached. Ideally KSP2 bases and colonies won't be anything like this, and they both use base parts.

For me I'd find it best if bases were described as anything made of base parts, and colonies were bases that could make more kerbals and base parts for the colony, i.e. sustainable and containing a colony.

This is pretty much what we're looking at. Phase 1 colonies are constructed from modules and crew that are brought to the site by vehicles, and once they gain ISRU capabilities they shift to Phase 2, which is self-sustaining and the population of which grows organically.

[Dr. Kerbal]

1 hour ago, Nate Simpson said:

This is pretty much what we're looking at. Phase 1 colonies are constructed from modules and crew that are brought to the site by vehicles, and once they gain ISRU capabilities they shift to Phase 2, which is self-sustaining and the population of which grows organically.

Nice!

[LittleBitMore]

EDIT:

Section III added

Section I at least partially confirmed by Nate Simpson (thank you for confirming this for us, it means a lot to me!)

[InfernoSD]

On 1/24/2021 at 9:07 PM, LittleBitMore said:

Core concept: a programming language.

I think this kind of thing is a lot more complicated than what their goals are for the game. Not that programming can't be an interesting engineering feat in itself, but it gets away from the core gameplay.

My expectation is that once you complete a flight such as a delivery to a colony, the game will offer to repeat that flight for you automatically and in perpetuity.  Hopefully this will be something you can actually see on-screen, e.g. by watching it in the tracking station or by standing in the colony and watching the ship come down for a landing. But I wouldn't even be surprised if the automation was entirely virtualized and entirely off-screen, only because of the difficulty of duplicating a flight path in a constantly moving solar system.

On 1/24/2021 at 9:07 PM, LittleBitMore said:

A major issue I see with this is the physics range.

Agreed. Hopefully KSP2 gets rid of the concept of physics range. KSP1 creates a sort of "physics bubble" just around the player, but one can imagine a version of the physics system where a "physics bubble" is created around every object that is currently in atmosphere, moving on the surface of a body, or close to touching another object.

On 1/24/2021 at 9:07 PM, LittleBitMore said:

Such additions could make MONUMENTAL changes for KSP as a whole

Agreed. This is one of the biggest upgrades a sequel can offer.

On 1/24/2021 at 9:07 PM, LittleBitMore said:

I've seen a lot of debate on whether life support should be added or not. [...]

Perhaps they need some sort of snack, but that would also raise the question as to why they don't always need snacks. The KSP2 devs have one big question ahead that they need to solve, and I hope they choose wisely.

I wonder if the answer to this question could be cryogenics. Maybe kerbals are forced to go into hibernation pods once they run out of life support. With some kind of rule that the player can still wake them up but only so long as the player is actively controlling them. The rest of the time, they have limited functionality with regards to science, ISRU, etc.

[Mikenike]

On 1/24/2021 at 9:07 PM, LittleBitMore said:

Currently commnet would work for probes like this: if the connection to the KSC is good enough, you can control probes. BUT WHAT IF, instead of the KSC, you could also connect to pilots in spacecraft or at bases? Pilots would then have a use at bases obviously, as if you weren't easily able to connect to the KSC, you could always just connect to Duna Autopilot Base, aka DAB, and use that as your remote control.

 

I LOVE IT...... THATS A GREAT IDEA.

[LittleBitMore]

17 hours ago, InfernoSD said:

I wonder if the answer to this question could be cryogenics. Maybe kerbals are forced to go into hibernation pods once they run out of life support. With some kind of rule that the player can still wake them up but only so long as the player is actively controlling them. The rest of the time, they have limited functionality with regards to science, ISRU, etc.

I really like this idea! Thank you for introducing me to it. May I alter my original post with your idea added?

[InfernoSD]

6 hours ago, LittleBitMore said:

I really like this idea! Thank you for introducing me to it. May I alter my original post with your idea added?

Yeah, go ahead. It makes sense as a broad concept, but it's hard to figure out what the finer details would be, where running out of life support would be genuinely bad but not so restrictive that it would ruin an exploration type mission.