FREEFALL1984

Hopefully at this point in humanities future we could invent a way to produce a material which could essentially block a gravitational field. That way a ship could be designed which could focus on a single gravitational field with the exclusion of all others. using that method we could "focus" the ship on key bodies on route to the destination and simply "fall" there without the need for any engines. Also the scale of the vessel would be unimportant because we could in theory launch anything without engines by simply "focusing" on a moon or passing planet. Of course the speed of acceleration would initially be very low but it would constant and increasing based on proximity and size of target body, the tough part of course would be stopping, since the vessel would still be effected by inertia, although in theory since the vessel could essentially use gravity assisted breaking using any object within line of sight, it wouldn't be too tough

My specialty is timewarping right through my target planet,

They're really useful for attaching to the top of a toroidal tank which is then attached to an ASAS module surrounded by batteries atop a/several mainsail engine/s, then using the fuel hack you can try and reach lightspeed, or build a horizontal takeoff rocket, which can achieve a 1000m orbit around kerbin.

I won't pretend to be able to TELL people how to play the game, but I can share my opinion on the subject. Mechjeb is a brilliant and powerful tool, for me it does however take self control. By self control I mean for me I must limit myself to certain features on principle. I only use Smart A.S.S, the execute button on the maneuver planner (I don't allow mechjeb to actually create nodes unless its simply something basic which I've done a million and one times such as circularizing my LKO after launch) I refuse to allow MJ to perform takeoffs and landings although I will use the surface information. I will not allow it to perform rendezvous or docking. These aspects of the game are all slightly more enjoyable to me if I perform them myself. That's not to say that "this is the right way" to use mechjeb, for some people the fun of KSP is in designing and building a ship or spacestation without the "hassle" of building it in orbit or actually getting in into space themselves, for others the fun is in coming up with the most efficient method of getting from A to B on their own without anything but the maneuver nodes (or in some cases without even using those) What you should consider when using MJ is; is it the right thing for you. is it effecting your enjoyment of the game? Also when I first started using MJ (after about 100 hours) I discovered that it taught me a lot more than many people give it credit for. For instance, I only downloaded MJ after having some real difficulties performing a rendezvous (occasionally resulting in me spending half a real time hour orbiting Kerbin 100m below my target. I told it to set up the node and then it just clicked and I knew what I was doing wrong, now I simply set myself a maneuver node to intercept the target orbit and then move the node around my trajectory until I get a <100m intercept, as soon as I intercept the target I just circularize the orbit like I normally would, hey presto easy rendezvous. Without MJ I would likely still be spinning around kerbin getting increasingly frustrated. So as a learning tool, its unparalleled, but that being said, I advise new players to try (just try) to start the game without it, at least until you get the majority of the basics down. After all nobody likes to see Jeb take the sidelines on every launch

The fine/reward for the hazardous/safe return of parts would be a very small token amount, we're not talking about a mandatory game mechanic here, simply an optional way of the player earning a few more credits per mission. Also if you're struggling to design a launch vehicle which can successfully reach orbit and carry a few extra parachutes then you're overloading your lifters and should cut back on a little payload.

Thats why the player could be rewarded for achieving a safe landing of debris (ie a controlled decent of <10m/s) or fined for an uncontrolled landing, (anything faster than >10m/s) Brilliant, create two "money pools" one for the mission budget, one for the fiscal rewards, the player can then spend his financial rewards on stations and refueling outposts to make his missions easier perhaps though, it would be prudent to transfer a percentage of the remaining mission budget into the money pool, that would encourage efficient building with financial reward. I never really considered it like that, if you're looking into the cost per kg of payload then you're indeed right and the space shuttle was extremely expensive, Probably due to the fact that most of the space shuttle itself was in fact unnecessary payload. You're also right, in order for a suitable mission system to be implemented, there needs to be balancing incorporated for aircraft, maybe on vessel maintenance for example, a small conventional module/satellite consisting of around 20 parts could cost a tiny amount to keep maintained maybe just 100 credits per month (30 days) a large spacestation would cost much more to maintain due to there being more parts perhaps charge the user a token fee of 5 credits per part per month when in kerbin SOI and 20% of that when outside of kerbin SOI unless manned. An SSTO or another aircraft on the other hand could have an exponentially increasing maintenance fee, maybe doubling per flight for an SSTO, so after 5 or so flights a simple 100 part SSTO would end up costing 16000 per month to maintain after another 2 flights it would jump to 64000 credits and so on until it caps at the total cost of vessel when new (of course just a balancing method but to a role player it represents the aging and wear of parts) Obviously atmospheric craft would not pay double (perhaps just increased by x1.1 per flight to a 20% vessel cost cap) That way if you rely on a single SSTO the cost of maintenance would be so high it would end up costing as much as the aircraft itself at every launch. Also because the maximum lift of an SSTO is much lower than a conventional rocket, by the time you get the same weight of components into orbit you've had to launch perhaps 3 or 4 missions and you might as well of used an equivalently priced or slightly more expensive conventional single use rocket. But of course a very small SSTO with minimal parts (perhaps just 20 cheap components) could still prove profitable for the user assuming it is only used for sending single kerbals into orbital rendezvous. Of course as you say, this is simply speculation and Squad could do anything with it, but it would be interesting to see how they end up balancing the game to encourage the use of conventional rockets as well as SSTO's

The obvious disadvantage of building an SSTO spaceplane in KSP is the same as building an SSTO spaceplane in real life (if it existed) in that the maximum payload would be effectively restricted to a relatively low amount compared to lower altitude craft, in real life large cargo planes can happily carry weights up to 250 tons to moderately high altitudes in real life, but then try doubling that altitude and adding all the required hardware to provide adequate life support for the crew and fuel and oxidizer as well as all the other requirements of rendezvousing docking and navigating in a low earth orbit as well as the structural improvements and heat shielding that wouldn't leave much for payload. I have the same problems in KSP, my SSTOs cannot carry much more than 3 or 4 tonnes into an LKO and that only just leaves enough Dv to make a rendezvous and return to kerbin, if I want to travel any further I generally need to jettison engines or build a very small SSTO which carries nothing but its own weight. Also your economy statement confuses me, you state that a conventional rocket which loses components as lifts off is MORE economical than an SSTO would be? surely you have that backwards

This is like what I'm sending to minmus on my next big rock cleaning mission, However mine differs in that it will not transmit the data but it will return it to kerbin via a small army of mini manned landers, which I will land on the surface at strategic locations, then after I have driven my rover out to them and transfered the data through eva, the mini landers will return to kerbin, the experiments will then be cleaned before heading out to the next biome. When I eventually want to return all my crew I will send a simple 3 man return module. Thats the plan anyway, out of curiosity, how does that thing handle on minmus?

Simply rotate the leg and angle it outwards, I often do this with the large landing legs when I'm using a small engine and it gives me a much wider base. That being said due to the fact that I'm landing a 4-5 tonne craft on legs designed for much heavier loads which are angled outwards means landings can be slightly firm to say the least

Would be interesting if you could see your center of thrust and center of mass in space, that way you could potentially balance out none symmetrical ships in flight by moving fuel.

No of course we shouldn't be "forced" to play anything, I believe that's why many games, including KSP have sandbox modes, but in order for a game to have effective career progression, it requires certain dynamics which limit the options for the player and make the game challenging. I'm completely aware that KSP is a sandbox type game, but then look at games such as rollercoaster tycoon, the sim city games among many others, the career modes where enjoyable because they limited the decisions for the player and forced them to think creatively in order to meet certain requirements. An unorthadox parallel would be the Elder scrolls games, which allow the players to go wherever they wanted and do anything they wanted right from the start, and of course there are optional missions, but there are always the same key dynamics, for instance if you steal you get fined. KSP needs similar dynamics in order for the career to stay interesting, currently, asides from the tech tree and science which is simply a very basic progressive limitation system, there is no such dynamic to speak of, and if they introduce finances, there needs to be a way to, gain, lose and economize those finances, without simply spending them in the VAB otherwise they simply have a secondary limitation system rather than a funds and management system... besides the recovery of components would not be mandatory, people would be free to take it or leave it, but when times are tight and the game gets tough, it would be a thrifty idea to keep used components for reuse

Indeed, of course doing nothing would be easier than doing something about it, and if not bringing parts back to the surface made no difference then nobody would worry about it. But if games developers worked with that philosophy, then landing on the surface of a planet wouldn't make a difference or be necessary to the career advancement and therefore it wouldn't be possible, so there would be no landing legs. Ships wouldn't require power to operate because its simply easier not to bother. They wouldn't require fuel because its just another unnecessary element to make the game more complicated, and there would be just one item in the VAB and it would be called "rocket" because building rockets can be hard and its easier to not bother and it would reduce the memory demands on the game since it would be easier to not have to simulate the physics on all those individual parts. Actually it would be "easier" is KSP was just a text based game where the user types the word "launch" and then a video of one of the apollo launches is selected at random.... In fact there wouldn't be a KSP, or any games for that matter. The thing is we don't play KSP because it's easy, we play it because it's challenging, enjoyable and satisfying. Some choose to play sandbox, some choose to play career mode, but either way due to KSP being a beta, the addition of game mechanics is inevitable, and in my opinion, having to return items from orbit for financial gain would be an interesting an easily implemented element.

I don't think he means a full complete stop, performing a full stall at that altitude and with all that speed and with (I assume) nuclear engines would take an age, consume thousands of m/s of dV and almost certainly result in a fiery death of the main vessel before he makes it stationary.

The current trajectory of the components could be calculated shortly after decoupling to define the approximate landing site and the number of parachutes vs the weight of ejected parts could be calculated to determine the impact speed of the items, it can all be pre calculated based on known figures so would not really require full physics simulation. This way you can be awarded/penalized funds at the approximate landing/impact times. Not actual impact times which may never actually occur Of course dropping nuclear components into the atmosphere doesn't happen in an ideal mission, but in the event of something going wrong, such as a rocket collapsing (in my previously mentioned "hardcore mode") or an interplanetary probe perhaps crashing into the surface by accident on its return journey. Then the player should be penalized for poor design

indeed, perhaps on a "medium" game the item must have an periaps of >150km in order to be deemed none hazardous, and in the "hard" game the item must have a Peri of 500km in order to be deemed none hazardous. and in hardcore, the stages must either fall back to kerbin or reach escape velocity

I have perused a few threads and have seen this/ a similiar topic mentioned before, but rather than necro I thought I'd start afresh, So here's my idea, this is purely what I would like to see KSP become in its lifetime. After 0.24, when credits come into play, there should be an optional mission system, for instance the first mission would be something like "launch a kerbal in a rocket and recover him alive" obviously this would be a simple sub orbital hop and on recovery, not only will you be awarded the standard science points based on the completion of the mission and experiments performed, but you will have your "budget" increased accordingly on completion. The "budget" would be the amount of funds added each day, also as you hire more astronauts, you must pay each one of them a weekly salary based on their stats. although you will always have Jeb, bill and bob to start with, who are always unpaid. later missions could include things like "launch a telescope into a 300km polar orbit" "create a communications network with 6 geostationary satellites" or "design and launch the first segment of a space station" all satellites and space stations launched into orbit remain in place for use on later missions or in case of emergency. Each launch will also add a very small amount to your budget and each new science node would incur a small weekly cost to account for the an incremental increase in research funds required as you advance through the tech tree. All parts and stages falling back to kerbin and not being destroyed would refund you a certain amount of the original item value which would vary depending on the proximity to the KSP (perhaps 90% for landing on or near the KSP) with additional reductions for landing items in tough to access biomes (such as 50% for landing something on the poles) There can also be things like fines for not complying with IKSA (international kerbal spacetravel association) rules, who would be a governing body managing the space exploration industry. This could include huge fines for dropping nuclear components on kerbin, killing kerbinaughts, leaving kerbals on other planetary bodies for extended periods with no means of return or leaving them in EVA for extended periods, as well as smaller fines for components which hit kerbin and are destroyed and debris left in orbit with peri of lower than 150km. Also grants could be provided for designing affordable space travel via SSTO craft. and mission by mission bonuses for recovering a large proportion of used parts, only using solar panels and other such perks would provide you with a small bonus. Generally all financial gains or losses would be balanced to provide you with more than adequate funds to run the space program and remain in profit, although woefully inept players might find themselves in the red and having to make cutbacks. Adding these elements would allow for a variable difficulty, perhaps where "easy mode" means you don't have to pay fines or kerbinaught wages and all parts hitting kerbin are recovered for full value. "Medium Mode" would allow for all aspects apart from no charges for fallen parts and increased recovery value "Hard Mode" would mean all elements above are applied in full, and of course there would be a "Hardcore Mode" where there is no option to revert craft to launch or VAB. The management of your space program would add a nice new angle to the game, and of course sandbox mode will remain for the players who don't want to play this way, Perhaps also having a "classic" career mode would mean people could continue to play their old careers without worrying about finances

But when used in conjunction with a mobile land based science lab, it saves you having to spam transmit results and minimizes the time spent cleaning experiments. I'm thinking, Large land based rover, fitted with a science lab, multiple SSTO minipods, each comprised of a small vessel capable of getting into a stable orbit and performing a rendezvous. once docked the science is transferred to the main station and the pods are refueled, and returned to the surface, either to re-dock with the rover or land within close proximity. Then at every transfer window, a nuclear tug is sent to meet the station and bring additional fuel supplies and/or planetary escape vehicles to the target planet before then return to kerbin with all the science vessels. While the SSTO minipods are travelling to orbit the science lab scrubs all the experiments and performs a few transmits in order to clean the last bit of research from the biome, before slowly chugging off to find more science. That way you can clean the science from a planet without having to spam the crap out of the experiments

Ah, I was never aware a kerbal could remove science from another command pod and replace it into another, I always thought once it was in a pod it was fixed until landing, I assume this is the same procedure for removing science from instruments, I shall have to try this technique. Can a kerbal store science in an unmanned probe body? if so that would then eliminate the need for such a part. And simple group of 3 radial engines attached to an FL-t100 tank with a lightweight probe body and a parachute would make a splendid return craft. They could even be stacked on top of each other using decouplers ultimately making a group of simple return craft weighing in at less than 0.9 tons each. Thank you for this advice, in my current career I have abstained from visiting minmus, (I'm trying to clean Mun first) once I create a minmus craft I shall use your method and expand on it to build an oversized minmus rover, complete with a science lab, all the experiments a kerbal could ever want and a series of docking ports attached to the top (to allow the future addition of new science instruments) and also a string of 4 of 5 micro return crafts, each capable of attaining an orbit and landing on kerbin.

Indeed, but if you then want to transfer the data from one pod to another there is no option. Having science transport modules would allow people more flexibility with regards to science without having to return either their full larger vessels, or core elements of their ships.

Here's a suggestion based on a question asked in the tutorial section. How about having removable science, by that I mean a component, which takes in all of a vessels science as it collects it for return to kerbin, this component would weigh a considerable amount and fits onto a port component which can be attached to any vessel. the removal and refitting procedure can only be performed by a kerbal on EVA. the science packet can then be sent back to kerbin by any means necessary, if the science packet is lost or destroyed, then the research must be performed again. I think this will allow people to create "micro return" vessels and have them designed solely to return science to kerbin. it could potentially add new options to the game, either, spam transmit & clean experiments, or return a single science packet with several thousand points of science aboard. Even make several docked probes on a single unmanned ship, each probe carries a science packet, and once a certain amount of science is complete, a single probe returns to kerbin to allow the larger mothership to continue around the system : )

Ok, while I'm not the most experienced player, I found out a few things which could help true noobies... 1 - PLAY THE TUTORIALS, seriously, there is an abundance of them flying about and they provide a wealth of information to a new player 2 - Play the career mode, this will give you as much training as the tutorials, and by the time you get to the surface of duna, you'll know how to use every single item in the best way possible, 3 - Revert flight is your friend, I make a point of not returning to the space center until I'm exactly where I want to be, if you don't switch vehicle or return to KSC from the start you can revert to launchpad even when walking on minmus. 4 - Run a checklist, if there is one thing I've learned it's that a good checklist saves you a lot of time, and a lot of heart stopping moments, for instance on a recent trip to Duna with my new prototype fuel vessel, I made a clean insertion, performed some next level aerobraking and got within 200 meters of my rendezvous target, only to find that I positioned my RCS tanks too low and they went back to kerbin with my lifter. I had no monoprop but I had a fuel tanker with enough fuel for a return trip back to kerbin and enough spare to fuel my SSTO several times over. Thankfully I had some monoprop in my main station so I had to make my spacestation dock with the fuel tanks. I had a similar issue with a visit to the jool system and a science lab with no crew. 5 - Test test test test, If you're making a lander to touch down on a small moon with little gravity and no atmosphere, test it on minmus first, if you want to land on a large moon with little gravity and no atmosphere, test in on the Mun, if you want to test its performance in an atmosphere, then test in on kerbin. if he mission you're planning involves many components, test them all, in fact perform multiple tests, Nothing worse than getting on a nice approach with your target and realizing you're going too fast and having your parachutes tear your ship apart every time. 6 - Add a probe body. Even if its a crewed vessel, put a probe body on anywhere, it can prove vital. 7 - Get used to orbital fueling, its easier to get a ship off the ground when its empty, then send the fuel up later, its my standard method. also if its a ship with lots of thrust consider using the fuel in the transfer stage to circularize your orbit and rendezvous, since you can always top it up later 8 - if in doubt, strut. 9 - Mainsails are bad, they might be powerful and it might be funny to sit a kerbal on top of one with a tiny fuel tank then use the fuel cheat to send him into the heart of the sun at almost light speed, they have terrible ISP and eat through fuel really really fast, if you do need them, use them on lower stages only. 10 - Learn to play the game without mechjeb by using mechjeb. 11 - Have fun, sure KSP might be filled with boring moments where you have to spend 10 minutes thrusting constantly or waiting half an hour because you're aerobraking too high and are too low to warp but too high for the aerobraking to have and significant effect. but it is pretty satisfying to another reach planet and performing a perfect landing within 100m of your kerbals.

It wouldn't need spokes, the tensile strength could be allowed in the actual ring itself, providing the weight was evenly distributed, it would holed its own structure in the same way a compressed air cylinder does.

The system could be docked in orbit, have its cable attached, to its counterpart, one section could consist of all the none critical hardware such as the lander, communications array, solar array, battery backup and enough fuel/water for the journey, the other segment could contain the living quarters, the command module and lab. Once the vessels have performed the transfer burn, they are undocked and using RCS the cable is loaded and the rotation begins. and mid course corrections could be performed by RCS over several hours by the computer. All the fuel lines (for the RCS) water lines and communication lines could be incorporated into the cable. The cable itself would only be carrying about 1000Kn of force max, which is well within the realms of current industrial hardware. Alternatively the fuel and water supplies as well as the battery backup could be store midway along the cable, in order to remove load from the cable itself, and the mission payload and living quarters could then balance each other out

The idea would be that it would never need to stop, and that the docking port would remain stationary and rotate on its axis, I believe the Coriolis effect would be negligible due to the linear design of the station, making all points be as close to the center of rotation as possible meaning no cross forces and no dizziness for the kerbals, although we do have to remember that these guys can happily survive reentry while strapped onto the nosecone of a rocket travelling at MK10 through the soupy bit of atmosphere. So I think a little dizzyness and nausea is the least of their problems

Here's what I normally do, I'll get into a low orbit and make sure I'm about 20 degrees behind my target, then I'll spend a little time perfectim my inclination, then I'll time warp to "catch up" with my target, now here's the cool but, I'll wait until I'm more or less half the distance behind my target as they are higher than me. so for instance if I'm at 80km and my target is at 100km, I'll make sure I'm about 10km behind them. which means I'll be roughly 22.3km away from the target as the crow flies, and then I'll perform a transfer to their orbit, now I completely ignore the fact that there is another ships and then circularize my orbit, assuming I performed an accurate transfer and got my altitude to within about 200m of the target and I circularized accurately to within about 200m, I can should in theory be less than 1000m away from my target, on almost perfectly matching orbits with almost perfectly matching speed and now you can gently follow the velocity vector to catch up/fall behind. Basically if you spend as much time perfecting your vessels orbit as you did when you first set up your space stations orbit, you should only have to worry about timing your transfer correctly, which after a bit of practice and experience should be a doddle... Please note... I'm not an astrophysicist and the whole "half the distance behind as the distance below" thing is not mathematically perfect as it doesn't take into account orbital radius or initial velocity difference, and any errors in it would be amplified exponentially over larger distances. it's just a figure I've found and seems to work quite well for the most part