tater

All LS boils down to what can be recycled, and what needs to be added. There is no reason to be more complex than that, IMHO. Yes, you can micromanage what is recycled at 94% vs 80%, etc, but it becomes needlessly complex as the whole thing is only as "realistic" as the least realistic part. It boils down to mass, after all. How many extra kg/day per person need to be brought along, vs what is the difference in LS system (recycler, etc) mass per efficiency. Real LS is so tightly integrated into spacecraft design that the idea of lego-like elements that you tack on to add capability seems needlessly troublesome to me. Do SSTU variants only change the appearance, or can they change mass as well? In the latter case, LS could be a variant. Take a hab module. Instead of seats increasing with radius/length, perhaps the LS capability can change as a variant. 2.5m part is 3 kerbals, 3.75m is 5. Every X m of length added can add a couple seats. The LS capability could be variants that change the total duration, and the number of seats. Base 2.5m hab with only 1 seat might have more LS supplies, and a better recycler (something RoverDude added to the MPL). My only issue with the USILS guidelines is using mass as the multiplier for parts like the cupola, which makes zero sense to me, it seems like the volume and/or subjective factors should dominate. On habs, assuming IVA is a possibility at some point in the future, I might be inclined to have the hab parts not stretch finely, but in "1 floor" blocks if that is possible. So if you had an IVA of a single floor/level of a hab/lab, you could make the hab 1 level, 3 (like the stock MPL), 7, whatever, then the IVA could just use the same model over and over for each floor.

I will make a stock copy to test for you.

Even in a scaled up system, the new heat shield part on a CMX survives reentry with just a medium with 266, vs the CM's own 450 that blows up pretty quickly. I assume the procedural is using the new technique, but not the capsules?

I like IVA, and would move around a little to check it out, then I'd forget about it except for docking/landing sometimes.

I agree with having passageways, for sure. I'm just saying those of us who call for "realism" are not asking to have to manually move each kerbal to the bathroom, or work their arms to feed them, etc

Moving kerbals manually is not "full realism," even though many against things being even slightly realistic would misrepresent realism this way.

I'm using USILS right now, but I haven't upgraded it in a couple patches.

RT is not a reliable news source, BTW, it's a government organ. Russia has some very capable people, but I'd be inclined to discuss it once it's flying (or at least testing).

Yeah, even if it did;t add anything unless you had a specific damage to repair, I'd just like to see them doing EVAs, it would make bases/stations seem more alive/real.

RoverDude has said he's looking at his own EPL-type functionality at some point, FWIW.

Many in fact have more than one doctorate. Doesn't matter, robots are still better almost all the time. PB666 makes an excellent point about mission parameters. Unless the mission is explicitly designed to do things robots cannot do at all, or could only do at greater expense (something hard to even imagine, but let's assume it's a possibility), then there is no point in sending humans to the surface---other than it's awesome to see humans on the surface. As I said, I'm FINE with the stint of landing men and women on Mars. Very cool, very inspiring, but it's about that, not about science. A Mars orbital mission with associated robotic vehicles and sample return might well be far easier and scientifically useful than manned martian surface missions as the teleoperation of vehicles would effectively allow them to be driven as-if there was a driver onboard. I'd add that as self-driving tech gets more and more ready for primetime, the ability of robotic vehicles to be even more superior is only going to increase. Honestly, talking about a manned Mars mission in 20 years looks even more silly if you include the likely improvements in robotics/intelligent systems.

I'd go farther and wish for an AI kerbal toggle. Then you'd have certain sets of tasks they would do on their own. Engineers would repack chutes, or repair stuff. Scientists could wander around and collect samples, etc. It would add a lot of atmosphere.

Science about humans in space is being done. Humans are not needed to do any other type of science in space, except to study how humans deal with being in space. Astronomy? Humans not needed in space. Planetary Geology? Humans not needed, but they can do it, even well, but not cost-effectively. Physics? Humans not needed. Biology? Humans are mostly not needed, and there is a break between the biology of living in space (only useful for getting things to live in space), and the basic science of life in general (I'm not a biologist, perhaps there is some fundamental life science that requires microgravity, but if so, does it require people, or can the experiment be done remotely?) Medical? This is the circular reasoning science of humans in space. "We need humans in space to do science!" "What science do you do?" "We study humans in space!" Chemistry? Humans are not needed, as the plumbing for chemistry in microgravity likely removes direct interaction anyway. I'm all-in for human spaceflight---but it has exactly nothing to do with doing science, that's just an awesome byproduct.

ISS was built for two reasons. 1. To give Shuttle something to do. 2. To give Russian (post Soviet) aerospace something gainful to do so they'd not take jobs building rockets for bad guys. That's it. Any science is gravy. The bulk of the science on ISS is human factors in space, which is incredibly useful---for human travel in space. It has no other utility, it's a kind of specific, applied science (keeping mammals alive in the hazardous environment of space). Any science you claim is better with people needs to be possible either only done directly by people, or better by people (either markedly better data collection, or it needs to be more cost effective, ideally both). For a lowball manned Mars program, you could send many Curiosity sized missions, and still have money left over for sample return. Yeah, given a few km radius, a man could gather more data in some finite time period... but he cannot gather as much as dozens of robots over decades.

Good idea.

Agreed, I've taken to trying to make everything exciting by only playing with life support. I will test certain craft like landers using hyperedit, given hat I use scaled up systems most of the time, too, but I always send unmanned probes first, often several. Even a Duna return is sort of a big deal with 6.4X and life support. My diff levels could be scaled so that Easy=normal kerbol system, Normal = everything scaled up 1-3X, and Hard maybe everything is 3-6X (with caveats for the tiny worlds like Gilly so they stay appropriately tiny).

Individualizing each play though suggests someone playing through more than once. After a couple random kerbal astronauts, you're back at square one. You know exactly what is needed to do A or B. Your first Mun landing was kind of exciting... how is the 100th? My first 6.4X Mun landing was pretty exciting, however. The game has no sense of exploration after you've seen anything at least once.

Only if female. A male is blond, a female is blonde.

I said nearly no science, explicitly taking human factors in space off the table as circular. So if it's about man's ability to live in space... it's useful, but only for man in space by definition, it has no use aside from men in space. I agree we need some of that data for our manned space stunts, though---and I love manned space stunts, I just don't delude myself that they are "for science!" You'd also need to demonstrate that the science that you like could only be done by humans in space, not remotely. The most important ISS science has been the AMS, and it is only at ISS because of power needs, it's not like it needs people. I agree the 100 billion is lowball, I was guestimating assuming a shuttle-type budget for ~20 years. As I just said, ISS hasn't done much of anything, and particularly if you take only experiments that require active, human interaction in a way impossible to do remotely. Even many of the bio experiments could likely be done remotely, frankly. It's not just that people can do an experiment, the only experiments that count are those that can only be done by people, or that somehow a gajillion dollar ISS, plus the cost of the people is somehow cheaper (which seems pretty unlikely).

How is optionally changing the planets for replay value bad for the game?

There is no possible way a manned mission provides science per dollar gains on probes. That's a flatly rediculous claim. We all like space travel, we all like manned space efforts, but the idea of increased science per dollar is absurd. ISS has returned nearly no science at all, except for human factors in space (a circular argument, as the only reason for that is more people in space). The only good science was an instrument that didn't need humans, but the ISS solar array. Btw, 100 billion is a good benchmark for a manned Mars mission.

How many curiosity rovers could be sent for the same total expense of a manned Mars mission? Also, the man is there for a far shorter time than each rover, possibly on the job over a decade. Compare your example with equal cost spent, and mass delivered/returned but robots. There is no science that cannot be done better by robots. I'm still fine with a manned Mars mission, but any science they do is gravy, it's not about science.

This is flatly untrue, particularly in 2016. You could possibly make this argument successfully in the early 1970s, when our remote capabilities were less capable, but even then, you need to directly compare missions of identical expense. Apollo would have returned more samples unmanned, but with the same level of expense.

I'm all for stunts, my post didn't make a value judgement. None of the reasons for manned spaceflight include "science," however.

Your experience is not remotely unique, and it's not helped by Squad's refusal to give players the data they need to plan missions (though there are mods that help, KER, for example). One suggestion is to send probes. If your first lacks the dv to get the job done, send more propellant next time. In your particular case, can you use the kerbin encounter (perhaps combined with a Mun pass) to put you into a solar orbit that will allow another encounter later?