tater

I think that the entire tech tree/science/contract/career paradigm is not well thought out, and needs a fundamental change.

I think the OP post lacks the appropriate context. If this were update 0.91, testing would not have been mentioned at all on the forums. The fact that it is arbitrarily 1.0 sets the standards very much higher. In a normal update, the lot of us would be beta testers, and the QA people Alpha testers. By going from a successful beta test, to an expansive alpha with no beta testing… you will see exactly the reaction you have seen, and it's entirely appropriate. It is NOT the fault of the QA testers, it is the fault of not having a wider testing of something that is "release version." YMMV, but that's how I see it.

Grinding is a thing in KSP because the only mechanism to secure funds is the contract process. A budget system would allow for more concentration on "space program," and less on the grind. 1. Make time a thing. I suggest a Minmus month (50 kerbin days, I'll call it a "Minmonth") as a basic budget unit. Add a "warp to next fiscal month" next to the warp to morning button. 2. Have the "space program" missions (explore and many other science or base missions) come with all funds in advance, but paid per Minmonth. So you take a 30 Minmonth contract to Explore the Mun, and the 300k budget is paid 10k per month. You can take commercial contracts to boost funds as per now, or you can warp a few months if need be (say to get funds to upgrade a facility). This would change the dynamic from grinding contracts to selecting a goal, then working towards it.

I always start a new version in stock career. It plays no differently than previous career, frankly. Science/tech/contracts/career need to be rebuilt from the ground up, IMO. Together, as they all interact.

Yeah, missions (contracts) need to make more sense. Right now the reward in KSP is new stuff (tech), and the currency to buy it is science points. The contracts deal out funds (and now seemingly less science), but are the same grindy contracts we are used to now---repetitive contracts that often make no sense whatsoever. Testing parts in ways that are idiotic, for example (jets on the Mun). Or we get survey contracts, but however Fine Print did it, they have a group together (sensible), then usually one outlier that makes mission planning pointlessly annoying. I want career to be decent… but it simply isn't.

So you get tons of tourist contracts. TONS. You've done a few orbital missions, and now tourists are half the options. Then the rescues. You have world record altitude, but so does someone else, apparently. There is no sense to the entire contract system at all. 3d parties want "science" or station missions, your own program has none, and other programs are losing more astronauts than you have sent to space. It feels slapdash.

They'd be given the supply from the supplies aboard. So Jeb is "fed" and can last 3 days (or whatever on EVA), he leaves with 1 supply from the rescue ship, and either enters, or places it aboard (like science storage). He goes back to his craft, and one of the rescued crew hits the snacks, and wakes up… long enough to walk to new craft. Rinse, repeat.

This. There needs to be a vision, or even different visions. "Science" could just as well be an alternate "career" mode, for example. I know this is a "tech tree" thread, but I think it is a fundamental mistake to treat the TT as something that exists outside the context of science, "contracts," and career since they are so tightly woven together. Any attempt to mess with the tree without messing with everything else WILL fail, IMO. It'll just be differently grinding. Tech is NOT developed by doing space science, sorry. That disconnect is a fundamental flaw of the entire tree system. It can be partially a function of this, but I think in a very specific way (certain kinds of science required for certain kinds of improvements). I'd ideally have a time-based system (a budget to spend every XX kerbin days (I was thinking a 50 day minmus month)), and you assign funds to research. Funding generates research points, and buying tech takes those points, plus possibly specific science missions. So a Hitchhiker part might require a certain amount of science (crew reports) from orbit. Maybe science over time like a lab, but keeping track of time on orbit. Some might require part-testing contracts (sensible ones). ISRU parts might require research and sample returns from any world (asteroids might all count as 1 world for this) where ISRU is to function. You'd then pick a path to research, and that would sort of drive your program for a while (as you need to wring out issues with that tech). Honestly, there needs to be more "upgrades" for parts. Squad was willing to have astronauts buff parts, why not have research buff parts, instead (improved engine with better Isp, or gimbal range, etc)?

True. My point is that people usually mischaracterize US spending as being "50% military" when in fact only ~20% of US federal spending is military, and that drops a bunch of you include even just State spending. The US is better compared to the entire EU. Also, people fail to realize that the majority of US spending is social programs by a long shot.

Most non-direct welfare spending is another kind of welfare… NASA is a jobs program, basically. It's like military bases, the Pentagon wants to dump most of them, and so do congress critters… as long as the bases are in another district, then the base is critical to national security. A new space race with China would be cool, because it would be a rationale for cool, manned stunts (like the Moon). Otherwise, we'd be better off with robots---and probes are vastly more capable now than they were in the 60s and 70s due to modern computing and electronics. You could possibly argue in the 1960s that men were the best way to collect rocks (particularly a geologist), but that's simply not the case any more. I'm for humans in space… just because it is cool. Just because I think it is inspiring. I don't delude myself that it's "for science," however.

... is a pewdiepie?

About 2/3 of US spending is "welfare," in fact. Those numbers are discretionary spending, which is about 1/3 of federal spending. The other 2/3 is "programmatic" spending and is automatic. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Note that the States also spend money. A lot of money. The majority of most State spending is Medicaid and education. Local government spending is also huge. The budget for the NY City school system is 23 Billion alone. So US defense is actually a much smaller percentage of total government spending than people think.

That is not sad at all, someone has to spend what the U.S. spends on defense. The ESA should be better since someone else ponies up the expense of worldwide policing so they don't have to. Mexico might be able to help at some point, as they share our 2 ocean geopolitical position (so does Canada). We get some space stuff into the bargain, too.

Regarding a rescue, perhaps eva kerbals can each be given 1 supply that gets dumped into any pod they enter.

Works pretty much as I'd expect it to, I have changed nothing major about designs and they work fine, but I only play without FAR to test a new release, so I'm used to rockets that look like rockets.

I don't do spaceplanes, never even unlock the parts.

I can't test this right now, can you just post the findings? What about the same 3 tests with a heat shield?

It's hilarious that people were afraid of reentry, and even posted that it should not be added. YOu have to work hard to botch reentry (or use the heat shields as stock in 1.0, hands off

A more intuitive tech tree would be unrecognizable, both in the way it progresses, and how those progressions are "purchased." I think as long as the career/science/tech paradigm is the same, it can't really markedly improve. We need a total redo of career (mod?), IMHO.

Mission control usually worked them out on paper and sent them to the spacecraft (except Buzz Aldrin, who did his PhD in orbital maneuvering/rendezvous). The current "no nodes" method is the sort of "seat of the pants" stuff that was simply not done (distant visual range rendezvous "by hand" was tried with Gemini, and they used FAR more propellant than they did when they planned the maneuvers). The current node UI represents a combination of pilot and ground control working these things out, and it doesn't make sense to me to have it off, well, ever.

Nothing major has come from ISS at all. I'm not discounting anything, I asked for specific examples of really important science done at ISS (or shuttle), and I'm still waiting. Could result… that's not an achievement, that's a possibility of one someday. Maybe. Even if something was named, you'd then need to demonstrate that the science in question could not be done unmanned---obviously human physiology might require manned, unless they are looking at cells that can be cultured. In the latter case, there is no reason there cannot be a microscope that sends images back, still unmanned.

Not true at all. While attitude correction was possible (even briefly used) there was not the constant input required in KSP right now to maintain attitude, just small corrections. Another method used was a rolling reentry (spinning the capsule around the long axis, which was coincident with the velocity vector). This also doesn't work with the broken KSP heat shield, all it does is precess the offset. The US capsules, and Soyuz were all capable of ballistic reentry (vehicle shape is ~axissymmetric with respect to the velocity vector). Apollo could have the CM offset from the axis of symmetry, so that the craft would enter slightly tilted. Roll (RCS)would then point the tilt such that a maneuvering (via lifting) reentry was possible. A dumb, ballistic trajectory should be possible. Note that this is confirmed to be a bug (by Roverdude, who made the shields), so I don't know what you are arguing about.

Name some. Seriously. Take human medical data that only pertains to living in space off the table, too. The only really cool science ISS has done has been AMS, and the only reason it needs ISS is power requirements, it could certainly be unmanned with enough juice provided (it uses 2000-2500 watts). Men is space is a cool thing, but it is a stunt. That's why it progressed during the space race. The ARM mission is silly, IMO, it should be unmanned… except they need to justify the billions spent on Orion (a spacecraft no one wants (except those gobbling up the pork).

Had I known about the shirts, I might have taken one. Now I'll have to, lol.

I don't disagree, I know it is accidental. None the less, it does show that if they use ray-tracing for heat shielding, it is too simplistic for anything other than a aligned reentry. - - - Updated - - - I wasn't saying it was right, I said it was "closer to right than I thought" (assuming an off center CM for the pods, since they stabilize, and the offset rotates with them). Since at first I thought it was 100% wrong, anything better than 0% right is closer. The take-away from the image I posted was that ray-tracing along the velocity vector for heating effects is unrealistic, and can result in problems due to lack of a proper bow shock.