tater

A quad copter faces the same issues, it'd have to be much larger than the actual rover I'd bet.

The reasons for manned space flight have little to do with science. Human physiological issues in microgravity environments don't really count, as they are valuable only for the sake of putting men in that environment in the first place, not for gaining broader, basic science data about the universe at large. For that robots win. In KSP we might rationalize a geologist astronaut picking better rocks, but in the real world, with the same budget (in both treasure and dv), you'd have a robot sample return that would simply grab more rocks (all Apollo grabbed, plus the mass of squishy stuff and the life support required to sustain them). i think manned missions are important for the sheer adventure of it. Exploring is valuable for civilization at large psychologically, I think.

You'd need a pretty large fan. Try it on earth, then calculate what size fan you would need if the air was only 1% as dense, but need to move similar scale-size dust particles.

This subject came up in another thread, and as I posted there, this thread started to languish a little, and I think it's because we have no idea what Squad is planning on doing, or even what is on the table. I think there are good ideas here, and not all from the same POV, so it could be very useful. It would be nice to see someone actually working on it chime in. Even if the direction they chose is not what some of us consider ideal, we could at least drive the conversation in the direction of way is actually going to happen. Fine Print added some OK stuff, but it doesn't change the fundamental problem with career. Right now the contract system requires the player to try and invent a context for seemingly (and actually) random missions/contracts. I harp on Mission (your own program) vs Contract (doing something for a 3d party), and want that separation from a storytelling sense. People can argue "open ended" all they like, but if the "contract" says that X corp wants you to build a base, it requires that the player intentionally ignore what the contract actually says if he/she continues to to use the facility, or even mans it (since you explicitly built it for someone else). There is no point in have a contract come from some 3d party entity if none get treated as belonging to a 3d party, it requires the player to actively ignore something he has specifically been told. Any new mission/contract ideas can be interesting, but often they are interesting… once. After that, a grind, or something to ignore. Many extant contracts are absurd (the parts testing with no reasonable context, which is over 90% of them). FP added some that are just as absurd---landing asteroids? Really? The basic paradigm now that for game difficulty, "hard = lower funds/rewards" is just a grind slider. Adding hoops to jump through on contracts is often not harder, just "more tedious." The fundamental problem is that things are not actually ever more difficult, the same equipment/skills are used, all that is needed for different mission profiles in more dv (obviously some manned missions are actually harder to build for, like manned Eve, etc). This is even true just looking at "management" which honestly isn't a thing now, it just isn't. So what would make difficulty levels actually matter? What would make contracts feel like less of a grind, or less repetitive? What would eliminate the early game grind of upgrades, particularly for players who have a clue already? I think time needs to matter. Somehow. Either KCT-like, or possibly a mechanism like the one I suggested above, to pay funds out over the expiration time frame of a given mission (KSC mission, not "contract"). Missions then become "budget" items, and contracts are a short term bolus of funds. Eliminate dumb contracts. Obvious, but needs to be said. Facility upgrades? Perhaps finer grained control of facility upgrades. More steps that cost less. I'd Separate commercial contracts for 3d parties from those your own program employees suggest. Many of the current contracts need to be "mission suggestions" internal to your program. Odd station ideas make no sense from 3d parties, particularly when you get to own them. Same mission from your own program makes far more sense than trying to explain in your own head why some company is giving you large sums to build a station for them---then they give it to you. Go over the extant contracts and make sure they make sense. Putting a satellite in X orbit should make some sense instead of being a random parameter. Why, matters from a story telling POV. They talked of "tycoon" or other management level issues, but there are not any right now. Management implies time to me. A budget, costs for having astronauts, if they are used right now or drinking coffee at KSC. I'm not saying I want to be bothered with that, but that's the implication. Even if really abstracted so we don't have to be bored with it, it would make some sense to consider. Honestly, some stuff should be done autonomously by kerbals themselves. Many hate this idea, but the concept of a "manage a space program" game combined with "the player has to individually control every step a single astronaut takes" makes no sense. If you set up a facility on the Mun, and it requires "scheduled service" it would be nice if you could design craft for that mission, assign astronauts to do those missions, and they would just happen on a schedule (obviously time would have to actually matter, and it doesn't at all right now). Any failures (which would be nice to have) would present fun mission opportunities for the player (rescues, repairs, etc).

Yeah, I agree, and you just have a different strategy than I do. As I said, I use another method to try and make some of the missions feel like they make sense in context… which is exactly what we should not have to do, the very point of career is putting missions into a context. In the thread about this stuff I'm sort of at a loss ATM, because unless we have some evidence that they are profoundly changing things, adding more contracts doesn't help. Any novel enough to be really different are just grindy in a different way, or interesting---once. Sort of like a few months ago when I did my first rescue a kerbal contract. It was fun. Once.

Yep. I'm about to experience that (springtime in New Mexico)

Remember, ion engines will spiral in, the same way they would spiral out. I seem to recall a gyro failure as well, so they are using fuel to point the antenna I think.

I see the pure science missions as the "point" of my program. Commercial launches (satellite contracts) are just a way to pay the bills, so I take them from time to time. I never use them after launch, and if the map gets cluttered, I delete them. I see that as the "spirit" of the contract idea. Note that that only applies to Kerbin. Others I usually ignore, unless I am planning a probe mission anyway, in which case I use that as the orbiter parameters, and I then allow myself to move it as required (So I will take polar orbiters of the Mun or Minmus with science instruments and assume they are scientific missions.

I agree that the cause is a bad career system. That said, I would prefer for contract satellites to cease to belong to the player as soon as the orbit parameter is met. Then, future contracts might be to repair or resupply, etc. I'd do the same for any bases/stations built for 3d parties---though I would also have Missions proposed by your own KSC, that you'd obviously own.

Better would be to use Regolith since that will be stock in 1.0 (even if you make your own changes to that, roverdude says it's made to be modable).

ISS is protected by the earth's magnetosphere from large amounts of radiation that crews will face on either Mars or the Moon. Looks like estimates for crew exposure for a 30 month mars mission is on the order of 2000 mSv. Lunar missions would be shorter duration, though either could involve burying the habs with soils. As for gravity, we have loads of 1g data, and a fair amount of 0g data. We have almost no data for anything in between. It is unknown where the cutoff is for "normal" physiological response in the range of possibilities between those 2 figures.

Yeah, the Mun is really dark compared to the Moon. Also remember that lunar landings tended to be done with low sun angles to facilitate observing small craters and rocks that might adjust choice of exact landing spot---and they are still vastly brighter than the Mun is.

Very cool. What diameter is the hab going to be? I'd suggest perhaps splitting it into the upper and lower parts (offering possible flexibility in building crafts later). I have no KSP modding skills, but when it comes to it, I'm happy to test stuff out in game.

PB666 pretty much nailed the answer to this. I'd add that while the dv budget for Phobos/Deimos is comparable to the lunar surface, the travel time is certainly a big deal, and without a rotating station/spacecraft, even the moon might prove to be a medical issue over long time frames, so the near 0-g of the 2 martian moons would possibly be a medical issue. I recall reading a paper (a couple decades ago) about using Phobos/Deimos as places to mine propellants instead of the moon because the dv budget is similar, but it's far easier to leave the ,martian moons once tanked up.

Data is data. If it reads off numbers, then 100% transmission. The gameplay and balance are an issue because the entire science system, and its interaction with tech is broken, IMO. Goo? That can be whatever the devs want. If it need to be landed, it needs to be landed. A thermometer? No, that's transmitted. Sample return, and maybe goo are the only things that should need to be returned, and I'd argue they should then have 0% transmission (a later probe part might be a sample analyzer that transmits X%). All the other stuff should transmit 100%, IMO. The trick is that globally, the science returns should drop. Then perhaps EVA reports and sample collection can be weighted by science astronaut skill as a multiplier. So a sample picked at random is worth 20. Picked by a level 5 scientist? 100. The EVA reports could scale that way as well. Right now, the "gameplay" is that you land wherever, plant a flag, take a sample, make an EVA report. Move "biome" (even is there is no "bio," but that's another post), rinse, repeat. Vast science, trivially achieved. It's kind of jarring when something like a temperature log cannot be transmitted, though (it's odd it's even a part, as mission control even knows the body temp of the astronauts is their system is anything like NASA ).

What a profoundly bad mechanic.

"Hate?" "Outraged?" Really? I hardly think anyone is filled with hate, and I think being outraged is pretty hyperbolic. Regarding Nimoy, for any good he did (inspiration, etc) in ST, don't forget he also hosted "In Search of" which was basically non-scientific crap painted as plausible/worth study (ancient astronauts, bigfoot, etc).

Not the last one at all. The other choices at some level, yes.

Yeah, physics would need to be active in case it wrecks.

The biggest issue is that they are all the same physical size, not the same scale. I suppose given the price, few would ever get more than one, anyway. I agree that if they were cheaper, I might get some, but $100 seems high to me.

Not disagreeing really, but it's funny to me that people would add LS for realism's sake, then remove it because it's realistic. End game I can see it as a substitute for what should exist, which is your astronauts able to do routine missions without supervision (resupply, etc). That's where the "Tycoon" notion for KSP really breaks down as the player is not just manager, but has to do every single task himself.

I'm not against it getting very efficient as a late (end of tree level) thing. Seems like for a Jool base (orbital?) you could use ISRU to get any raw materials on a moon, then bring them to orbit (or drag a comet/asteroid there). Any ground base would have ISRU anyway, right, so it seems like it's only an issue for orbital stations. I'm all for colonies as end game, but I'm not sure orbital stuff will ever not need inputs flown in, frankly. Heck, Hawaii needs them Planetary bases would be self-sustaining well in advance of orbital stations, IMO (even with the weakest ISRU currently looked at).

I guess I must be missing something. The stock game has no life support, so it is identical to the path you think is required for good gameplay (life support not mattering because it is closed loop, at least at the end game). It seems like that creates a gameplay mechanic where life-support is a thing early in the game, where new players are already possibly struggling, then at the end, when they have everything, including ISRU, and can deal with most anything difficulty wise… life support ceases to be a thing that matters. It seems like having life support always matter means that the end game---where you want manned missions farther from home---is actually more difficult from a planning POV. That seems like what I'd want to see, or am I missing something. With ISRU, you can at least get air and water, which is raw material for food, as well.

Time needs to matter, but continuous expense is not the way to do it, IMO. I'd rather see payments over time to create time as a thing that matters. Have a mission to build a station and maintain it for a year. Instead of a bulk payment upon placing the station, you get paid 2000 funds a month. When that expires, it might make the contract/mission system create a new mission to add on tot he station, resupply the station, rotate the crew, etc. (creating a new revenue stream dealt out by the month). Other missions might deal out the money as larger sums in fewer months (remember a Kerbin month is only ~6 days as I recall).

I meant for the period we are messing with in KSP. It would be the very, very end (off the tree now by a ways) of the tech tree. I'm aware of regenerative systems. At least for Mars they have an atmosphere to borrow from for some consumables. The reality is that recovery rates while getting better, are nowhere near 100%, and as you say, won't be for a while. More importantly, from a gameplay standpoint, it seems to defeat the entire purpose of having it in the first place. I would say that the purpose is to functionally place time limits upon manned missions without resupply. I'm honestly fine with single-resource life support (plus power), and distill the recovery/waste/consumables to a single mass value for any added capability. So the habitable parts have the hardware (for recovery, etc), and a stock of consumables of X days duration based upon the part. Any additional LS parts would be consumables storage, assumed to use the mechanicals within the hab parts. All that matters is what mass per day per kerbal needs to be added into the system. This at least provides a place for LS in the tech tree. Capsules have 100% internal LS, and they appear when they appear. It opens the door to later habitable parts can simply use resources at a lower rate (notably things like the Hitchhiker, or mod habs (rover dude's, porkjet's, etc)).