tater

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.

I solved this by using PF, instead.

Gravity likely ruins it for someone. How many someones to become "the rest of us?" If ISRU is too easy, you might as well turn on infinite fuel, and be done with it. I'd not claim to be the sole arbiter of what is, and is not fun. I tend to think that problems to solve are fun, vs everything being easy. I agree completely regarding bases, BTW. I think at a bare minimum, KAS should be stock for numerous gameplay reasons (gives kerbals on EVA something useful to do, allows bases to be more realistic, etc).

I tend to prefer erring on the side of realism because realism is "balanced" due to physics (and chemistry, in this case). I think that it results in better gameplay. Current ISRU means that in the later game, when the player has everything, he also need not worry about propellant, because magic. If the ISRU was tuned, at least to a few different types, with different efficiencies, then the player would at least have to design a craft to only use ISRU at a particular kind of target. Atmospheric might be one type. Can make a few different fuels, so have this make LF-O. Water (usually frozen) another (comets (add those ), and perhaps particular "biomes" (none have biology, so none deserve that name), like polar regions could use this. You get H2 and O2, very useful. Locations could be rare/inefficient, except on bodies with loads of ice/water. Regolith, this melts regolith to extract O2, and perhaps Al as propellant (would require a novel engine). Why would this be good gameplay? Airless moons would require polar ice, likely. You could get loads of O2 from regolith, but not much else of use (unless you bring a specific engine to burn Al). Duna, Laythe, have more options, but landing area is constrained for some of them. Comets (add a few) are very eccentric, but provide a huge payoff. I dunno, I think it adds to gameplay compared to, "stick drill anyplace, profit."

It's bad gameplay. Kerbin could have 0.1 g as well, then anyone could easily launch anything into orbit? It's just a game, right? By your definition, anything would be fine. If conversion from ore to fuel/oxidizer is fine at 100%, why not get 200% efficiency? Wouldn't that be twice as good from a gameplay perspective?

Nice stuff! In an attempt to keep part to a minimum, I am trying to concentrate on crafts that have IVAs for the parts that support a crew. Which folders can I remove? I am going through the cfg files, as the folder names have nothing to do with the in-game names of the various components.

Unless you had a cheaper way to get "ore" to orbit than burning fuel, no possible economy would have you ship rocks to space, to break said rocks into oxidizer and propellant as any real system would be lossy. Maybe with a solar-powered mass-driver it would make sense to refine in space. Current, simple methods of extracting O2 from lunar regolith via heating get 20% of the sample as O2 (which is comprised of ~40% oxygen). The rest is waste (you could Al as fuel, I suppose). I think 50% efficiency is generous, actually. People can do what they want, but stock is unicorn dust as it stands. Maybe the "Output Resource" can be modded to add a new "waste" resource so that it's properly inefficient.

Most all of the other contracts need to be expunged, anyway. The rescues are fun if RARE, but about 1/4 or more of the contracts I am offered are rescues. Another 1/4 are tourists. Hiding the contracts makes no sense, as they should require specific goals. A better solution is to split the contract office (calling ti "Mission Control" was a bad choice by Squad, since mission control controls missions already in flight) into the "Contract Office," and "Mission Planning." The latter would be all the stuff your own program would do. It would have (visible) all the "Explore" type missions, then taking those would open up sub-missions within. Those would work like contracts, but would be mission ideas your staff comes up with. Rewards would be given up front as a budget… Perhaps there is a set budget value based upon Rep, and the missions dole it out as some fraction of your total available budget remaining.

That it is even a discussion to lift dead weight to orbit is troublesome, only a percentage of "ore" should become useful depending upon what is being collected or used as fuel. As a simplification I'd say to treat maybe 50% of ore as unusable.

Given the current system, I disagree. I actually think there should be far more Explore contracts, only they should be called missions. The current science paradigm is so bad (collecting points from "biomes" is every bit as arbitrary and gamey as getting points from missions) that I think suites of interrelated missions/goals should actually provide most "science." If the system changed to real exploration, I'd want something different. For example, Explore the Mun could be split into a few missions, some manned, some unmanned. They'd be more specific in some ways, and completing one section opens up related missions. Polar orbit for the Mun unlocks scanning missions (temp scan above altitude, etc). The Land a Kerbal on the Mun would be unlocked after some previous mission that gets data from potential landing sites, etc. if science was designed better, this would not be required. Auto accomplishments basically default career to science mode, IMO.

It could have a 1.25m base, but be egg shaped so that 2 can fit.

I never do the insane ones, but I will incorporate some into missions I want to do. Say early tech tree, I'll test a bigger SRB to get a probe farther than I might otherwise.

The first CSM (command/service module) flight was in 1966. The first lunar landing was in 1969, and without the Apollo 1 incident, it might have been at least a year sooner, possibly 18 months. Dragon is supposed to fly manned in what, 2017? Grumman got the LEM contract in September 1962, the first launch was in '68. 2019 would be a bit of a stretch starting tomorrow morning, but it's not as daunting as people might think, since it really matters that we know it was done, and HOW it was done before, which makes it far easier than starting from nothing. At the time, NASA looked at earth orbit rendezvous, and lunar orbit rendezvous, but honestly, it is pretty trivial to do earth orbit rendezvous, AND lunar orbit rendezvous, which allows multiple falcon9/heavy launches for a single mission if required.

I'm with sumghai, A simple symbol next to the name would be fine. None for pilot, * for scientist, and + for engineer, perhaps.

About 80-90% of parts testing contracts are absurd. Currently, around half my available contracts are rescues and tourists, many for places I have yet to send kerbals. Any satellite around a planet other than Kerbin should be called a space probe, or orbiter. i could go on.

Mid game? I started a moderate career with 1.0.2, and I have intentionally waited to unlock a mk1-2, lander cans, and clamp-o-trons to land on the Mun Apollo style. I am working on the 160 tech tree items, and have upgraded the VAB/Pad/tracking/R&D, some all the way. I have 5-6 million in the bank. It is more grindy, but still trivial, honestly.

LOL. Or Rotterdam.

The moon makes more sense, and is really quite a bit easier. Mars shares most all the problems associated with the moon, with none of the advantages. As it is not really any more habitable, and there are benefits to having an airless world.

the KAS mod allows this and is great fun. I had a rover accident the first time I had played with KAS, and was able to collect the scattered wheels and put it back together enough to get back to my Mun base before the batteries died (the solar panels were toast in the tumbling roll of the accident).

The F-104's thrust margin (excess thrust) increases with mach number until the engine reaches temperature limits. The thrust margin is 12,000lbs at mach 2, and a little under 5000 at 0.8.

You'd first need to explain why anyone would want to live on Mars, then show what advantages it has over the Moon, or even just a space colony (rotating).

Select the overreaching Program, and it then generates missions appropriate to that program (past the obvious flyby missions, achiever orbit, etc). The contract system is pretty FUBAR right now.

It's grossly too weak compared to the real thing for one reason. Scale. There are 2 factors at play, the orbital velocity you hit the atmosphere with, and the time to experience the effects (path length through the atmosphere). Both are substantially smaller given out mini Kerbin. A simple test would be stock parts in various scaled Kerbins using RSS when it is ready. Maybe a 3X kerbin would be big enough that reentry might matter.

cxg2827, have you stopped work on yours?