tater

Does that mod actually create spiral orbits when you drag on a node?

Yeah, the mk2 is just not ideal, particularly for anyone unwilling to make fairings that don't look reasonable. It's 2.66t and 0.16t is mono. Mk1 is 0.66t, and 0.06t is mono. An AIS masses 0.1 for the same torque as the mk2, and the SIRW has 5 torque for 0.05t, 2 more torque than the mk1. 2 mk1 pods is 1.32t, and only differs by 10 mono, and 6 vs 15 torque. Stripped of unused parts and mono, the 2 mk1 pods would be 0.90t. Add an AIS, and we have a 2-man lander can at 1 ton. Throw in the 0.16t of mono, and we can replicate the functionality of the mk2 with just 1.16 tons. On top of this, the thing is not the best looking part.

Beale, I think the only reason it is destructive is that the lander tips over… any error associated with time warp I suppose might make the craft become briefly "suborbital" and then deleted due to the larger physics radius now? Try putting a Libra parts lander on the Mun, gear out. Then exit the game, and go back with another lander someplace nearby… then exit KSP, and see if the lander is in the tracking station. I can likely try tonight with a slightly more vanilla install for you.

I want to control how many lousy contracts I am presented with. Current system does nothing of the kind. If I were to ask you in plain english what the overall strategy of your space program was, would any of the "strategies" in the Admin facility be your answer? I cannot imagine any would. Is anyone's purpose "Outsourced R&D?" I want a way to denote the overall mission of my facility, and have the contracts/missions generated with that in mind, if for no other reason than to eliminate the clutter. Contract filtering would do the same thing without codifying my current goals, obviously. If I don't see myself in the space tourism business, I don't want to see those contracts, ever. I'd like to be able to look at satellite launch contracts, but not have to constantly dump them hoping for something decent. Part of the problem is that so many of the contracts are just dumb. Why would I need to test an engine on a suborbital flight? I could see testing it at various altitudes, but why would a part care if the end result was a bare orbit or not? How about a suborbital flight above Minmus? That is different from orbital flight over Minmus in what way? LOL. Of course with no time mechanics, there is no compelling reason to accept any contract you find uninteresting---with a time mechanic, you might need to take the odd, boring sat launch to keep the lights on at KSC.

Could it be related to the fact that one is for an aircraft, and would normally be subjected to far different stresses… like being horizontal (hogging), landing forces (while horizontal), etc?

I wasn't very clear before. I'm not sure if what I posted above is even possible, though. Right now, perhaps it would be possible to lock the tourism contracts such that you need to complete some specific contract to start them, though. So in that case you'd need to explicitly start tourism as a thing... Maybe for suborbital you get a contract to build a 2-kerbal rocket with parts X and Y (like a station contract), and test it on a suborbital flight. The contract can explicitly say that this is proof of concept for space tourism, and might open the doors to tourists… then the same with orbital stations, whatever. Just some way to stop the contract office from being spammed with tourists. - - - Updated - - - I like your ideas, but remember I said that they would be strategies on a slider. There is very much a distinction between those types of launches. All my idea does is let the player control what % of contracts they will see are from each type. "National" is budget based (science), Commercial is launch a satellite, etc, for funds. Tourism is launch people for funds. I agree with Rep driving budget, BTW. It's actually very similar to what you propose. All they do is control what type of contracts/missions you are offered. You can set your program to be 50% "National" and that would drive a budget based system, wit the other 50% commercial. Like "strategies" you could alter them in mid-game. So perhaps later in the game you might choose to start taking tourists to your station, for example (up your "space tourism" slider from 0% to 5%, say).

I landed after a beer or so… think I was in science mode? Was August last year:

I mean a sort of progression of such contracts... Right now, about 25% of all contracts are tourists/VIPs. Another 25% is rescues. A decent % are for places I have yet to land kerbals (been doing probes). It seems to unlock tourism for anyplace you have been to---but it counts probes. Instead, I would unlock tourism (and rescues) for one less place than you have been to, perhaps. Player progression: Suborbital: no tourism or rescues. Orbital: Suborbital tourism, no rescues. Body Orbital manned (Body = Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc): no tourism or rescues to Body, but orbital tourism and rescues for Kerbin. Body Landed manned (Body = Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc): Body orbital tourism or rescues in addition to Kerbin. Body landed rescues as well. Having done that (say first Mun landing), we have tourism for suborbital->orbital->munar orbital, and we have rescues for Kerbin and Mun orbit, and the munar surface.

Odd problem. I made a lander with the "Libra" parts. Good enough. It keeps disappearing on the Mun, leaving debris... I found the problem. I landed another vehicle nearby to make a base. All good, come back, Base module is there, my "Bug" lander is just gone, poof. Tried again, but this time I actually quick saved. Same thing happened, but when I reloaded the save and checked, the Libra lander had the Libra.Leg.A part not deployed… Switch back to KSC, for a while (long enough for a persistent save), and Bug is gone. Reload save. Deploy legs. Leave scene. Can return to Bug… if I have a persistent save, and load it (quit, restart), then the legs are stowed again. What happens is it is stable, but when it reloads with the legs tucked in, it must fall over (maybe KSP treats it as "suborbital" for an instant?). I checked a quick save with legs deployed, and the next persistent file... Quicksave: Persistent: Anyone else seeing this, or might it be another mod (I have few installed right now, ATM, USI Life Support, PF, and KJR).

A mod adds a seismometer and you then are supposed to impact a probe with some parameters to get a reading. That would be pretty cool. Fun is hard, though.

Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are doing suborbitals as tourism (at some point, anyway). I think that far-flung places make little sense until the player establishes infrastructure there. Perhaps such missions are predicated on the player fulfilling a contract to place a certain type of station/base someplace. Mission: build a station-hotel around Kerbin that can house 8 kerbals, power, communications, a docking port, and a viewing cupola. That unlocks orbital tourism. Ideally there would be a requirement that the station needs to be actually manned. (must have a pilot, an maybe an engineer, tourists would not go up alone).

Yeah, that works. I was looking for an analogy to NASA. Space Exploration Program or something.

That's it, I have very few mods installed right now, and I was using basic.

Back when the first tourist paid for an ISS ride, he paid 20 million, and that apparently covered the actual launch cost entirely. NASA pays like 70 million a seat right now to use Soyuz. A simple orbital craft in KSP costs what, 10k? My big issue with tourists is that the combo of tourists and rescues is literally half the available missions at any given time. The "Strategy" office is nonsense, and needs to be divided up between the "convert currency" stuff, and actual broad mission strategies (business plan) for your program. In the latter case, the choices might be akin to: 1. "National" space program (aka, you are NASA) 2. Commercial launch provider. (you are like SpaceX) 3. Space tourism (Virgin Galactic). Note that you could drag sliders to attribute what % of each your program is, so a program like Blue Origin might be 50/50 of numbers 2 and 3 as a long-term goal to start. You can be #1, but have 10% 2, and 5% 3 if you like. These sliders would control what kinds of missions/contracts you are presented with. The contracts would then be very explicitly changed to be one of those 3 choices. "Space program" contracts would be renamed "Missions," and would always come from your own program (have a spot at career start to name your program/company when you pick the flag). The funds would be the "budget." Commercial programs would have things like sat launches, but the player would stop owning the craft once the contract is fulfilled. Other commercial missions might include maintaining those things they earlier launched, adding modules to stations, etc. Parts testing would fall in here as well. Later in the game, there can be commercial resource (including some science required for same) contracts as well. Internal program missions might be to build specific capabilities for launchers (build a delivery system that can place 3 satellites in LKO, etc). Tourism stuff would all be lumped in here, but some might include contracts (internal to your program) to build facilities (stations/bases (hotels) for tourism).

The trick with any "science" in KSP, is to rethink it in terms of doing things that are: 1. Actually useful for gameplay. 2. Fun/interesting to do. For number 1, this means showing stuff that you would otherwise have limited in game. An idea I threw out there was to have the map view fidelity and zoom level appropriate to some photographic surveys the player has done. Early cameras might give a zoom level on a survey down to looking down from 10km, while a photographic "crasher" probe like Ranger might allow you to zoom all the way to ground level---but only in the area your crasher imaged. Ideally the procedural cratering on the Mun would be applied to ALL airless bodies, and with the minimal crater size possible set slightly smaller (and a different version for worlds with atmospheres). I think that caves like the actual image I posed above would be pretty cool, just because it would be cool to explore. That said, it still needs to be useful, hence my suggestion about having Squad make some pre-designed bases with a mechanism to construct them akin to upgrading facilities assuming some minimal requirements are met at the location.

In real life, some guys have suggested using intact lava tubes as habitats on the Moon. Collapsed lava tubes as rilles, would show the player where to look. Another awesome pic: What if Squad added a number of rilles, and some open lava tubes associated with some of the rilles. These would be like anomalies, not terribly common. Have a new game mechanism for building a facility in-situ. Add a new (very heavy, VERY expensive (think upper-level facility-upgrade level expensive) part called a "construction depot," and have a contract after you discover a lava tube that requires landing a few of these in a specific area near to the tube, plus a number of other, required things (drills, etc). Once this is satisfied, you can build a permanent facility using the lava tube... Here's the trick, the player doesn't build it, it is a facility like KSC, already designed to fit in that space (and the devs can make it flat near the entrance, etc). The facility would house kerbals, and might include a hanger and a limited VAB (low height limit, moderate part limit) that requires delivering parts (something like a KAS/KIS inventory, but in 2.5 or larger cargo pods).

Yeah, constant thrust trajectories would be cool. The big issue might not be time warp, but in calculating the spiral to show in map mode when planning a maneuver, however. Say you want a low-thrust trajectory to Jool. Right now you drag a transfer, and do the burn. The specifics don't matter, it's X dv required. For a low-thrust trajectory, it's not the total dv that matters to show it, it's how that is applied over time. With the spacecraft mass changing, so it's not just the engines currently active. I suppose you could take total craft mass, and current active constant acceleration engines, and have it use a guess for dv added per second, and expect to have to do periodic corrections as the craft mass decreases (as you will no longer match the mapped trajectory).

This. Most contracts are not well thought out. Agree, 100%. Good idea. Most missions/contracts should in fact have multiple, dependent parts. For science! Yes, parts testing should be rational. Right now, the player (assuming they even take parts testing contracts) has to build a "contraption" to test many of them, instead of an aircraft or rocket. Putting the testing in a context (including other parts required for testing) means they can build something "real" with it. Test a Mainsail? You need to be given a tank as well. And a nosecone. Interesting idea. The "strategies" are just goofy, IMO. I'd like to see strategies not convert "currencies," but alter the kinds of missions/contracts you get. Do what I keep suggesting, and make a difference between internal missions, and external contracts---internal would show up with "Kerbal Space Center" and the flag you chose for the career. Say one strategy was "Commercial Launch Provider." You would then get more commercial contracts (sat launches, building bases for other entities, etc. (though you should really lose ownership once they are satisfied)). Another might be "Space Tourism," in which case you get spammed with those missions (as you do now)---you'd get others, but the focus would be towards the "strategy" If your strategy is "Kerbal Space Program," then you get science missions. Needs fleshing out, but have the strategies actually be strategies. This, so much. Annual funds based on rep. Separate Missions from contracts (the former are exploration stuff, on budget, the latter are funds as you go as they are now). Have science "missions" pay out all funds in advance (a budget), but dole them out in parts every XX days. I suggest a single Minmus month (50 days). Have a "Warp to next Minmonth" button. Blow up all your rockets and run out of funds, and you might have to use it, otherwise you likely won't.

What does it mean if my first load took about 2 minutes? memory usage seems about the same. :/

The way DRE does it is better.

The problem is that "biome" (geome?) science is every bit as arbitrary, and little KSP "science" has any relation to the spaceflight engineering research required to develop new "parts." Science needs to be useful, for one, and that requires some "fog of war" regarding the kerbol system. At the very least randomize elements of the various bodies so that "science" can tell you where to put periapsis for aerobraking (because each career it changes), etc. Without the "science" actually doing something we can see (say not seeing detail on any world unless you scan with different levels of cameras or radar), then I like contract science (well done, instead of what we have) that puts the arbitrary "biome" stuff into a context.

I was fine in the VAB, but I had some of the retractable solar panels throw a note saying they could not be deployed because they were stowed. I put 2 crafts with these within a few km of each other, and had to force-quit KSP, and my FR dropped to 10s of seconds per frame (I've had the game crash before now and again, but have never had FR issues). These were small vessels, too. an Apollo-like CSM, and a small tug.

What happens to vessels in flight with the non-retractable PVs?

It is too easy, so I'll wait for a mod, or use stock ISRU with KAS and build a reasonable base to supply meager amounts of fuel. A simple way to dock on the ground within the stock system is to use a claw. Silly, but it stands in for running a hose. For the real Moon, estimates show that ISRU would mostly offset landing costs (fuel costs) (you can bring more payload, as you need not bring the fuel with you for attaining orbit again). Note that I think in terms of career play, even if the entire "management" aspect of the game is… less than ideal. If the Moon were as tiny as the Mun, you'd gain more, clearly. In the real solar system Phobos or Deimos are actually reasonable fuel depots even for earth SoI crafts (they are about the same dv away as the lunar surface, but escape from either is trivial). What is interesting about the RL comparisons, is that it shows a problem with multiple, interesting solutions. Who'd think off hand that it might be preferable to get ISRU from Mars orbit to earth than from the moon?

Orion is a capsule, it's not a craft anyone would live in for 3 years, you need a transfer vehicle/cabin (which could work with either capsule). Dragon 2 can likely handle the same kind of reentry criteria (11-12 km/s (lunar-Mars)), and current Orion is only specced out for a lunar return (Avcoat vs PICA). On the plus side, Orion must smell like Bacon. SpaceX is just another contractor. Had they existed long ago, and been showered with vast amounts of pork, they'd have built those things, too---whether anyone needed or wanted them or not (like Orion). The idea of SpaceX on Mars before NASA seems pretty silly, however. There is no RoI.