tater

Yeah, just a couple weeks ago, there was a "forum" in the pre-release branch that just took you there.

Ah, gotcha.

No, it didn't, it took off on wheels, which were dropped right after takeoff.

Good question. I think some of it has to do with funding, which shows they are less a billionaire plaything, and actually a shoestring business. If commercial crew gives them less money... they delay, for example. It gives the lie to the "Elon will colonize Mars" meme, since there's no plausible way to pay for it.

The only issue I see is if it is multiplayer... time warp has to be a thing, and everyone needs to do so in lockstep, at all times.

Yeah, in stock I'm not wed to starting manned, but career lacks any sense of a, well, "career." Career needed a hash out of what the point was, then it needed to be designed with that goal in mind. Assuming that the goal is to follow the arc of a space program, with the player as a sort of administrator, we need some new tools and mechanics. 1. Time needs to be a thing. Currently long time only passes due to time warp, and the only reason to time warp is to progress a mission in flight, or to warp to a transfer window. If building things took time (including rockets), then time would progress more naturally. The usual complaint is "needless" warping, but warping is a thing, and moving the calendar forward is not "needless," it's in fact needful. KCT as a mod does this, but stock likely needs a more simplistic approach (but not much, KCT is a great mod). 2. The science/tech paradigm is broken. This is harder, since buying tech is currently the only psychological reward system in career. Intermediate fixes are better tech trees (CTT and ETT, as examples of mods that do this). 3. To actually be a management game at all, kerbals should be able to do things on their own if the player wishes---execute maneuver nodes without the player needing KAC to do it themselves, for example. I'd add in even completing routine missions alone if assigned (station resupply, etc). With meaningful time this becomes more important as you usually have a few balls in the air at once. 4. Ideally there would be some sense of science giving you something for its own sake---doing some science could unlock an atmospheric trajectory prediction, for example. Some could allow better map zoom, and/or the ability to place markers on the map (to use as targets just like a landed ship) to facilitate better landings. 5. The ability for the player to set goals/programs explicitly. Ie: set the goal as landing kerbals on the Mun, and returning them to Kerbin. 6. This won't happen, and doesn't really deserve to be in the list, but if they can make AI kerbals, they can make an AI space program. I'd love to see a "Space Race" mode (which is implied in the game's rescue contracts and "Firsts" implicitly, anyway). Such a mode would be a foil for the player, and the time constraint of trying for "firsts" would create interesting decision branches for the player... wait till you get that part you want, of fly for the Mun without it in your sketchy craft to beat the Koviets.

As I recall, best seeing is a little under half an arcsecond. Usually it's going to be higher, probably approaching an arcsecond. While you might not resolve it naked eye, the usual impression is that there is much less (or even no) twinkle because they are extended objects.

Semi-related: Why was there a sub-forum that took people to the bugtracker directly for pre-release, but not generally in the support area? Meanwhile, the pre-release forums are still there... Since bug reports in the forums are supposedly not really looked at, shouldn't there be a link like there was for pre-release?

The prerelease had a direct link right here on this forum. Why, pray tell, is that not a constant thing in the forum? They have modded and unmoved install forums, but no real link the the actual bug tracker. Yeesh.

Sorry, I just think that's the way it will be at this point, and we can only hope for mods to make a decent career mode. Every change to career has been to double-down on the bad paradigm of "contracts" and planetary science somehow furthering rocket parts. For reasons.

The suits thing has been out there for a while. SpaceX hired Orbital Outfitters to come up with a suit that apparently Musk said should be, "badass."

Many of us have been saying such the same for a while now. If they can't deal with stuttering, or wheels and landing gear no longer working properly I think the chances of any improvements (read: scrapping and doing over) career are nil.

I mentioned "suit port," just not by name (the bit about climbing into the suit from behind). I'm still thinking that once humans are there for any length of time, it becomes a matter of how much contamination, not if there will be.

Meh. The Tesla is vastly more attractive visually.

You also cannot vote if you say that EVs are not on your radar due to range, since you are then required to pick an EV.

Oh, I'm with you there.

The problem with planetary protection is that in the case of this unmanned mission, the point is presumably both to not contaminate Mars generally, and to not contaminate any possible experiments specifically (should there be any explicitly looking for signs of life). As for manned missions, as I said, it gets considerably more complex. The more form-fitting (alleviating the pressurized joints issues) suit designs would necessarily be put on by the crew inside the spacecraft/hab*... would airlock designs than have to include sterilization both directions? Has that been in the DRA? *Some designs I have seen have the astronaut climbing in from the back, with the suit outside, then presumably someone wipes down the PLSS inside?

Words change meaning. If a word is always used to mean one thing now, then it doesn't matter what it meant before. "Awful" means very bad, right? It used to mean inspiring awe/wonder. No one uses it that way now. "Cute" used to mean shrewd/perceptive. "Manned" means peopled/crewed, or in this forum, sometimes kerbaled. Gender neutral pronouns would surely also be needed... but they are all cumbersome---the singular "they," for example (I'm with Pinker on this). I sometimes switch randomly between he and she for that reason, but when a perfectly good word is already effectively neutral I'm not overly concerned. Interestingly, "man" started as the neutral, with wer (male) and wif (female) and the gendered versions. Even my use of "female" must similarly be wrong, because it contains "male"... what to do!

Still need the PLSS.

Since they say the RD is a variant D V2 anyway, I can only presume that the base requirements are already redesigned for that mission, so I think saying it needs to be redesigned from D2 is a given, and all the obvious issues can be assumed. RD would pretty much require a larger side hatch as you need to get out wearing a suit, for example.

The tube would effectively be a tube with a different hatch than the normal docking ring/hatch. Clearly a redesign, but D2 does already have a circular hole on top.

Sending a 1-way lander is a lot different than sending a crew on a return mission. There is also no possible economic return. SpaceX, unlike the government, cannot simply print money.

Directional radiation of heat presumes you know where the enemy detectors are. The asteroid idea... dunno, if it has a power plant so that it can actually do anything, or a crew, it seems like it will slowly equilibrate with the crew compartment over long time frames.

Regarding planetary protection... what would happen on any (distant) manned Mars landing? If someone coughs while suiting up is going on (even assuming the suits were isolated from the crew cabin before that process) then that's contamination, as would be just exposing the suits to the crew cabin. Honestly, it seems to me once people are involved contamination needs to be assumed.

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/04/27/spacex-announces-plan-to-send-mission-to-mars-in-2018/ (source)