tater

This. Given the insane timeframes with the inability of the game to deal with constant acceleration trajectories, FTL is required. Perhaps you have an artifact someplace weird, like polar orbit above Kerbol... sort of like Gateway (a Fred Pohl book). IN that book, the spacecraft were there, and you got in one, and it took you... wherever it came from. Randomly to the pilots, but not random at all. Perhaps you get there, and doing so unlocks a new docking port for Gateway. You then dock with it at an empty port (it's a huge asteroid with docking ports all over, each with a latter above it (in a cool, alien alphabet)). There can then be a button to "jump" and you blink to being docked at some station like the one you left somewhat (different letters). Now you can explore a new system.

I'd like to see "on rails" constant acceleration trajectories, then nerf the living **** out of the ion engines

Since the claw can transfer fuel (for reasons) I bet it can transfer a tourist to a craft capable of reentry.

The entire relay concept in RT made me instantly abandon it, it makes no sense.

I have never really thought about it, but I would assume it is to increase rotor area without increasing the tip-velocity of the blades more than anything else. They might then be able to create equal lift to the other versions with lower RPMs. I'd also assume that they could pitch the blades less for hovering, which seems to be a flight mode that makes a lot of noise (sometimes they scoop water near my house for small fires in the mountains).

Maybe the wiki could have a huge disclaimer that "the content within this page is just collected reposts of what random guys on an internet forum say, and is certainly riddled with basic physics errors." ?

Add in communications delay. The simplest way is to disallow making a node any closer to the present position of the craft than 2X the time delay (1 delay time interval for the craft to report exact last status, etc, the next for the program to be sent). The skill in "piloting" in KSP is making the maneuver nodes, not executing them, IMO. I've always found it absurd that you can't order a modern craft to point in direction x, and burn for precisely XX seconds. Note that the engines can have a spool up/down time that would create some gray area around node execution. Assume the auto-execution uses ONLY full throttle, perhaps. It's not an impossible problem. The point where "stick and rudder" piloting would matter would be landing. Which is fine. - - - Updated - - - Yep. I agree. - - - Updated - - - "Partial control?" You either receive a command, or you don't/can't. - - - Updated - - - Actually, in addition to just time delay for light-lag, you could simply have an arbitrary delay. Probes are steered BY COMMITTEE. Data comes in. Probe guys look at it, talk among themselves, decide what to do, then send new commands. You could simply say for probe cores no node can be set within X hours of the present position plus time lag (useful for scaled up solar systems where the light delay might actually be comparable to the committee time).

I'd think "colonization" would be in-situ construction, at least assembly. Likely covered with soil. BIG structures. 10m? Way bigger. Sleeps 100 kerbals 2-3 to an apartment or something, where each apt is maybe 40 m^2 in KSP. That's a 10m part for every other kerbal, just for habitation Concrete (lunar and martian) have both been tested using simulants (I've worked with some of the guys doing that at Los Alamos in the past). Guys are messing with 3d printing (basically stabilizing soils with built in place retainers). The nice thing about such structures in KSP is that they would be covered with soils, and pretty easy to model---only a few places with a view need to be modeled as IVAs (assuming you want IVAs). Another possibility would to be able to have variant KSCs, where each is unique to the others (in terms of capabilities). I imagine putting out a building/facility using a huge "construction" rover part in a way similar to taking a part out of KIS. You drag it to the surface, and slide it around. Maybe it looks for "flat" under the template, then turns green. You rotate it with q/e as you'd expect, and maybe another key swaps between available designs (for variability in appearance). Place it like KIS/KAS with X, and it starts building. (edit) to be clear, you'd first need to land XXXX tons of "construction supplies" and perhaps have local ISRU in place at some level, etc, etc. to unlock this capability, and what size things you can place would depend on the available resources.

I think that programming a probe need not be any more complicated than "make a maneuver node." The probe then executes the node when it gets there. Problem solved. Players already can "program" a node, the only thing that makes it a "program" is to have the probe execute it---following an m-node is already in game, too. There is a countdown to the node, and it knows when it is done. Seems not too complex an issue given everything already there.

Rover dude's parts are cool, as are Nils277's (the latter being stock in terms of dependancies), but none really scream "colonization" to me. Perhaps OP just means "long term habitation," in which case they work. If the goal were really a permanent settlement, I think that an entirely new paradigm would need to apply, that I'm not sure is in scope for KSP and I don't want to derail the thread with a new mod idea.

This is pretty much a complete non-issue. A large number of people play with mods, and they manage to get support troubleshooting, and the changes would be small for the sake of balance. A choice of options for an upgrade path system, combined with precursors required more than the stock tree (a wider tree, with more attention to precursors required for a given new node) would make research paths more critical. If the current system were not so awful, then it would not be so attractive.

I just set them on the ground. I have used KIS to attach things, but have never had any explosions. Make saves so you can show us what is going wrong... Any chance of it being the kraken? Service bays tend to cause that, I've not heard of solar panels doing it, but perhaps they hit something as they rotate?

True enough regarding debeers, I mean the primary notion of dribbling out supply. Pt is selling at ~US$30,600/kg right now. , the current Dragon can return what, 3000kg? That'd be 45 M$ in platinum. You'd need to look at the return costs vs other costs to see how worthwhile that is.

It's only larger, deployed. It is the same size otherwise. The increased mass of the deployment hardware, etc, means it should actually have fewer resources. In a LS mod, I'd make the 3 kerbal version have longer duration.

You'd use the cheapest technology to put in in orbit (lunar, or a Lagrange point). You could then mine what you want, and debit small mounts (many 100s of kgs) at a time with heat shields and parachutes. In the case of Pt, you'd want to play at being DeBeers, and trickle it into the economy anyway. Dumping a ton would drop value.

And here I am, directly replying to a post meant for another! Burn me, I'm a witch! I assumed that anyone bringing up patents in an argument would understand that they are talking about the legal status of ideas, and that something with physicality, explicitly gathered for use as resources is, well, you know, a resource. Silly me. To the extent the law needs to progress in this area, I can only assume that it will tend in the direction that provides incentive for such resource collection. It's interesting to actually consider if any law on earth applies at all, frankly. If someone were to build an O'Neil colony, and earth said that they couldn't own a rock they used for metals, their proper answer would be to laugh, IMO. Any agreements made between powers on earth in this regard is a treaty between powers on earth, and would not seem to apply to anyone else. The UN is already a joke, and any "law" coming from them has no enforcement mechanism. Functionally, you'd have to have some country complain, then try and take it out in tangential trade law, I think: 3d world country A that mines some rare earth is POed that a US/EU company mines the same rare earth metal on an asteroid. That company's home country doesn't care what country A says. Country A adds some tariff on imports from the space-fairing country to protest, that becomes a legal issue. That seems like a more likely route (any lawyers here have more realistic ideas about this?). A buddy of mine is an intellectual property attorney, I know what we'll be discussing Friday over cocktails.

Claiming I "dint understand" (sic) has the implication (in English, anyway) that you expressed yourself in an understandable way, and I lacked the mental capacity to understand you. Had you apologized for being unclear, then clarified, then it's just a failure to communicate. Your tone suggests the former, which is odd, since you are not in fact expressing yourself clearly. In such a forum, posts that are on-topic (or tangentially related) can (and should) be replied to by anyone. I was more that clear, and really already answered your unnecessary question, but you failed to comprehend it. Intellectual property (patents, for example) are ideas. A rock in space is a resource. The ideas expressed in Musk's making patents public are not even remotely related to asteroid utilization as you presented it. Perhaps you mean something different, but are not expressing it well. Sharing the ideas that make such exploitation possible is not at all the same as share that particular resource you choice to exploit using those ideas. Do you think that since Musk gave away the patents he did, that anyone then can come and drive away a Tesla for free? I'd take them up on that in a heartbeat. That would be analogous to mining the asteroid brought to orbit at great cost by some other entity. It would be theft, not sharing. - - - Updated - - - Once again, you are arguing someone else. I said basically exactly the same thing. He did it for strategic reasons---which are in his self-interest. Or are you claiming it's for strategic reasons that harm Musk/Tesla? To be arguing ME, you must be claiming that Musk's strategic reasons are contrary to his self-interest. Are they? Yes or no? Do you not understand what "self-interest" means?

I cannot parse this in any way that constructs a complete thought that makes even a little sense, even as a stand alone. In reference to what it replies to, it makes even less sense. Then you did not express yourself well. You brought up intellectual property, which are ideas, vs the OP subject, which is a resource. To the extent this makes any sense at all, it agrees 100% with what I said. It is in Musk's best interest since more electric cars means more infrastructure---which is his primary obstacle for selling cars in the U.S. I know a bunch of people with Teslas, they are always at least a 2d car, usually the third car in whatever household (the nearest city from here is a 6 hour drive in a gas car, or 2 days in a tesla due to charging). It's not for cheaper batteries for all, or anything past allowing him to sell more cars. Self interest. That batteries, etc might become cheaper is a (good) side effect of self-interest.

It's also a pain when stuff that should decay doesn't.

The issue is total memory usage for some people, I think. You can always chose not to use the functionality, why care if someone else does?

Lol, sharing. Sounds like economics for people incapable of taking care of themselves. Asteroids are resources, not ideas. You "share" them by selling them. If you want to give away the tech patents for doing that, great, then someone can get their own asteroid. Until then, make hay while the sun shines. I'd not have it any other way. BTW, Musk shared patents out of self-interest.

That was a joke, "capitalism" has no interest in killing customers, and is our best bet at space exploration past our meager efforts so far. Every technology we are using to have this conversation is the result of that great lifter, capitalism.

BTW, the UN "law" in question refers to nations, not private entities. If a private entity in my county wanted to own an asteroid I'd assume that was just fine. I'd tell the UN to come up and do something about it with their space navy, or they can pound sand. Pissing off an entity with a big rock in orbit seems like a bad idea, too. Any company with such an asteroid already has more "teeth" than the UN.

Advances come from self interest, not sharing (except maybe where those unicorns and horses my daughter watches live, I think sharing works there).

LOL. True! Nils, the mk1 Hab has 3 bunks, with storage above the single bunk. Again, totally throwing random ideas out there... I like a 3 crew version, it fills a void. The stock 2.5m part is the hitchhiker with 4, and your looks better That said, the volume used for that bunk could easily be an airlock, and airplane style bathroom (a door that says "potty," "head," or whatever). Others can chime in and say I'm nuts, and I won't argue Looks like scaled to humans, it's ~60 m^2 for the mk2 (around 3m x 3.75m=11.25 m^2). It's certainly possible to get 4 tiny staterooms, and a tiny bath in there (1.5x1.5 in human scale is ~.64x.64 I think)---toilet and sink, and the whole area "wet space" with a showerhead on the wall. At 0.75m tall, a "stateroom" need only be 1m x 1.25m, maybe (bed and desk/chair). I have to say, I'm sort of surprised that the floor space in your parts is so decent at kerbal scale. I think the helmets throw everything off, you need enough storage space for 4 helmets as 2 bunks, lol. Maybe in the stateroom IVA his helmet can be hanging from the ceiling (in case anyone wonders where the helmets go )