tater

A dead horse! Quick, let's beat it! Nothing is cheating in KSP, but if you wish to actually get a "feel" for simple orbital mechanics, then as randazzo said above, you are cheating yourself of that knowledge.

The same things are said in every thread about career. It's a mess. It's also entirely tangled together with the science and tech tree elements of the game to the point that the idea of fixing contracts is quite pointless. It needs a reboot. Squad's claim of tycoon-like make little sense, particularly when there is no AI to the kerbals (it's not program management if you are required to do every single thing yourself---and this is coming from someone who has never even downloaded mechjeb to try it). As was said above, a foil would be ideal, and it's implied in the current system (this stranded kerbals must come from competing programs). To do it properly requires a computer-controlled adversary, and time as a meaningful game element (things need to take time, in other words). There are other possibilities for a decent career mode, of course, but honestly a space race is the most promising, IMHO. One idea would be a sort of offline multiplayer aspect. You check a box in kip that allows craft-sharing, and there could be a KSP server that archives craft files that are attached to career game states (tech tree stuff unlocked, etc). Your AI opponent could then present you with a competing craft that it borrowed from the library of player-designed craft files that have matching gamestates to the current position of the opponent in the space race. Ie: the opponent has all the first 3 tech nodes unlocked, plus one of the next nodes. The game could search for appropriate craft that use only parts that are contained in those nodes, that way if the player stumbles across an AI craft, or is tasked with rescuing one, they will be novel.

Nationalism is the likely drive to actually get increased funding to do it was my point, and that precludes other flags. It's all about the money, and the money is all from taxpayers. Right now, the current NASA budget exceeds all other space programs on earth combined. NASA asking other countries to participate is not spreading the cost for projects in any meaningful way, it's charity (to the countries asked). The US didn't need to buy a robot arm from Canada, we were being nice and wanted to include them (very "canadian" of us, no? ). Orion (I'm not a fan) could just as well have the US do the SM. Honestly, if we (the US taxpayers) were to spend many billions on Mars, I'd prefer that all the US tax dollars go to US contractors (like Apollo, it'd be a huge pork factory). I'm unsure why I'd want a manned lander built by people who've never built a manned lander before . I'm perfectly fine with an international mission architecture myself, but most taxpayers would be unhappy to find that the US ponied up substantially more than everyone else combined, and yet didn't get any credit for that, or that the first person out the door was from a country that contributed 1% of the effort. I don't see a NASA Mars mission with a Chinese life support system, and if the astronauts lucky enough to get invited for the sake of inclusion don't want to be insulted, their own countries could simply do the mission alone---that they were unwilling to spend the money is not my fault. There is no reason why an international Mars mission should not have the EU paying in just as much as the US does, for example, the total populations are not dissimilar. This sort of thing would require a 10 fold increase in the ESA budget I think. Is that tenable within EU politics?

A sphere is a good spacecraft design assuming your fantasy universe doesn't need radiators. The "Death Star" concept is making it HUGE. Putting all your eggs in one basket, and it's a bad idea (as 3 movies have shown). The death stars are like Yamato and her sisters. The IJN would have been better served to use those 68,000 tons (each) to build fleet 6 CVs, or 100+ DDs instead of 2 mega-BBs and a mega-CV, all of which were sunk by smaller assets.

ISS has no place to plant a flag. Mars will be a different story. On top of that, cooperation is less important than nationalism in such a project, honestly, because it is likely nationalism that would drive it (or it won't happen at all). Apollo was 100% nationalism. Any science gained was icing, the goal was beating the Soviets. It's arguable that a primary goal of ISS was keeping ex-Soviet rocket scientists occupied with peaceful activities instead of selling their services to would-be regional/global powers. Putting other flags on things is fine, like the Orion service module (should one ever appear). If NASA were to get a budget bump to do Mars, the taxpayers would riot if the press conference showed some hippie flag being what our astronauts would plant on Mars. That's just reality.

Just saying that it's politically untenable for the US to spend a ton of cash to plant a UN flag someplace... not gonna happen.

How many 10s of billions of USD a year does the OOSA have to spend? Any dedicated effort would be NASA with some other flags added that are not actually needed. If the US taxpayer is footing the bill, there's only 1 acceptable flag. Say the mission costs 40 billion. That's just the current cost. The US has spent nearly half a trillion on NACA/NASA since inception (in constant dollars). If the US is involved, for me to consider any other flag acceptable, someone else needs to chip in a quarter of a trillion bucks---and I think I'm a typical taxpayer in that regard. That's not gonna happen.

A UN flag isn't remotely plausible. There is no UN space agency, and any "UN" effort effectively means the US is writing the checks---and putting a UN flag on that would be politically impossible (domestically in the US).

Agreed. How many time do they have to keep trying "death star" designs?

It should be whichever country in the mission has paid the most---including the entire cost of all their national space efforts up until the point of the Mars mission.

No, it isn't, it wobbles a little around constant funding levels in constant dollars.

Took the kids yesterday. I liked it, it fit with the 3 I've seen that were worth seeing (Saw the originals, and ep 1 was so awful I passed on the rest of the prequels entirely).

My expectations were incredibly low, so I liked it. As a reference point, I saw Phantom Menace in the theater, and it was so irredeemably awful I haven't bothered with any of the other prequels at all, not even on TV.

Pretty darn competent given that fact that they are landing on other worlds within couple months of their flight manned flight in any sort of rocket at all.

The saguaro pics posted look to be only slightly large assuming they were on earth, given the 0.6m height of a kerbal. 0.5 m diameter is not crazy for them (I've spent a couple weeks in Phoenix during the last year).

Time warp is fine, how I clock every single object in the universe doesn't change what is happening. I expect all clocks to move in lockstep, or I'm entirely uninterested in KSP MP. 2 rockets launch at the same time? There better be 2 launch pads. The simplest statement would be that a 3d person watching a MP session seeing everything at once should be unable to tell it's MP, past the fact that 2 ships might maneuver at the same time. That's all I want to see, really. If my kid could join my game, and take over one of the craft and we fly them at once. My opinion doesn't matter, every game that shouldn't have MP but adds it uses some dumb instancing/subspace/whatever system, they are all equally silly, and I play none of them, so like I said, my opinion doesn't matter.

I know it's not "real" subspace, but functionally it's little different, just add warp drive then people can rationalize the silliness of syncing a bubble. I stand by the first bit of the thing you quoted. If anything can possibly happen in MP that would not happen if every single vehicle was on my local machine, then I am totally uninterested.

"Hard" career mode is in fact "grind" mode, IMO. For new players career is possibly the worst choice to play. Aside from learning curve, career adds a small level of difficulty that actually runs the wrong direction. Career in KSP is always hardest right at the beginning, getting easier and easier as you go. The only caveat might be taking really goofy contracts for giggles in the later game, but since I try for a career that at least feels roughly reasonable (realism wise, I usually play an upscaled system with life support) I don't take contracts I think are, well, idiotic.

If anything can possibly happen that would not in a single-player version due to subspace, I'm entirely uninterested. If you are going to posit "subspace" for multiplayer, then add warp drive, and make subspace a thing.

I found KSP to be incredibly intuitive, but then again, the last time I had done any orbital mechanics before KSP I used pencil, paper and my HP-15C. Rendezvous took rather longer to get the hang of than getting to the Mun, though. I told my daughter's science teacher about KSP, and he's apparently been playing, though I think he had a little more of the curve to climb, since he's a biologist (I think), so the concepts are not really in his wheelhouse.

Yeah, that's what I mean about bulldozing career, and redoing it. One (a pet peeve) "Mission Control" is the place where they monitor/run missions in flight, which KSP gets entirely wrong. It should be renamed Mission Planning or something. Two, you are spot-on. He's how I would envision a better career system. There are a finite number of possible goals in KSP. Functionally they are described by: 1. Manned (1, 2, 3, 4, etc)/Unmanned. (crew counted at launch) 2. Body: Kerbol, Moho, Eve, Kerbin (Mun, Minmus), Duna (Ike), Dres, Jool (moons), etc. 3. Orbit/Surface. 4. Science (then what specific science)/Construction (station/base/resupply)/Tourism/Spaceflight. The last one, Spaceflight, would be missions like rendezvous/docking/Change orbital plane, etc for early career. 5. Mode (direct from Kerbin, orbital rendezvous and construction, multiple stops, etc) (unsure of this one, but it seems worthwhile for it to have a field existing, even if nominally unused) That's it. Every, single possible player-defined mission can be created using the above. Commercial contracts can still happen semi-randomly (satellites, part testing, etc). A combination of your choices above could result in the game presenting budget/timing options for the player to choose from. These would be influenced by Rep. The budget presented might include some tech points be spent in the tech tree. The less funds you accept, the more Rep you earn (unclear on this bit). The tech tree nodes would require spending Funds, tech points (either given as budget, or some might occur due to parts testing or other specific "engineering" type contracts), and possibly science points depending on the item(s). Science would then continue to play a small role in unlocking tech, but would be more focused. Once a mission profile is selected, the game might create some sub-goals based upon previous achievements, as well. Start a new career. Decide that the goal of the KSC is to land a kerbal on the Mun, and return him or her safely to Kerbin, and you want it Apollo style. Manned 3 Mun Surface Sample return/crew reports Mun Orbit Rendezvous Your first Mun mission would generate something that looks like the current "Explore the Mun, but will include any other specifics you have added (sample return to Kerbin vs just transmitting science from the surface), plus actually returning). Unfortunately, you don't have enough Rep to "buy" the above mission yet, so you need to first make a less costly mission in Rep (the system can gray out choices you cannot buy) so your Rep can build to the point to allow the Mun mission (Rep would not be "spent," you'd just need to have a threshold to "buy" different missions---this would mostly affect the beginning game as the threshold would be set such that you'd need basic orbital milestones). In the above case, a starting career could build: Manned 1 Kerbin Surface/Orbit Various Science (some dependent on building upgrades, so really only fund-limited) Direct So you'd make some flights, earn some Rep, then go for the Mun mission first shown. Science collected would drive Rep pretty heavily, so you'd need to get some science to get the Rep to buy missions farther afield, though Rep might also be available via commercial missions if you prefer that route. Note that there might also be commercial contracts to other bodies that obviate the need for Rep. If Acme Corp wants to pay you to go to the Mun, then you don't need to beg Kongress for a budget, do you?

A more realistic progression would require making a goal, then inventing the tech to achieve that goal, not collecting planetary science to magically make a new rocket engine. It would require an entirely new career paradigm.

The new additions to career have been good to a point, the problem is that the "improvements" to career are in fact fixing things that were initially wrong by slapping more stuff on, without fixing the bad initial situation.

The career is by far the weakest part of the game, it doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be bulldozed and rebuilt from the ground up..

Any sense of realism in games that require long time frames from movement (naval games, space games, etc) is mutually exclusive with multiplayer unless the game is turn-based. If time doesn't move in lockstep for everyone, it's fundamentally broken for anything more than perhaps a couple people willing to agree on time warp.