tater

I would not count those. The intake parts in KSP have cross-sectional areas about the same size as the engine cross section. Those 2 examples have cross sections less than the area of the actual engine (or very close to it). Define "air intake = 1" as an area equal to the input of the engine itself. I'd bet that anything approaching 2 is not a real thing, but some fraction larger than 1 is likely found in RL. EDIT: I looked at the wiki, and for some reason parts with areas clearly identical to the engine itself have vastly smaller areas listed. My observations would be entirely based upon only playing the game (if you need to look it up in a forum or wiki, the game is not giving you enough information). It's like not using nosecones, and clipping. Nothing I ever considered doing. I always added nosecones, have never clipped anything, etc., I'd not know that you should not use aero parts on rockets if I did not see it here.

Regarding a "Space Race," there is a way to do it without AI. Any AI. A kind of multiplayer. Click "Space Race" (a new career option). Your other settings for career become slightly more limited (to some presets). The game then uploads your progress per unit time to a server. Basically there point at which you reach each milestone (including some disasters) that matters for a space race, with date/time stamp and the craft files that accomplished said milestone. They would be tagged by preset difficulty level. When you play, it will pick from those other players at the same diff level, chose ONE, and their milestones will represent the competition. So you are playing against other KSP players anonymously. Ideally, there would be a competing center, and you'd play against people choosing that other center, in a "dream" version, there would be stock-alike soviet stuff for that center.

I've only built a few aircraft, ever, in KSP, but I would consider putting more than one intake per jet engine pretty comical, frankly. If stacking them actually helps, someone should tell Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney, they're missing out.

They scraped the top 2 meters off the fenced in area where they let people go when the site is open to the public and buried elsewhere on base. They didn't do a great job. A guy I know who worked at the missile range went out and collected a sheet of it that was nearly as big as a dinner plate.

OK, assume for the sake of argument time somehow matters, unlike the game now. Make building rockets take meaningful amounts of time. Simple test, if it takes less than a few years to get to the Mun, crank up the build times. Note that the experience for the player in terms of gaming time… unchanged. 1.0 is supposed to have a snap to maneuver node function, snap to rocket on the pad, but X weeks have passed. Also assume that Contracts are commercial (launch X, and once complete, it's not yours, and you get paid)., Missions are your own program's project ideas. Strategies can be switched, but cost will vary. Within, many sub-strategies/tactics/background will look like nightingale's post ideas. Real Strategies: 1. KASA. Your program is an analog of a national space program. The program gets to pick X missions/contracts per year based upon Rep. The missions will be broad, multi-part affairs like "explore the Mun" with enough parts that they will keep you busy. X will be small, and upgrade sort of like it does now. The Missions will have most cash up front, but large penalties for failure in terms of rep. Rep will actually determine budget, basically, so loss of rep will hurt next year's operations. Possible Mission goals might include a "beat the competing program to X" race like goal that is time critical. Very, very costly to switch to another strategy, and very unlike to switch TO this strategy from another unless your rep is stellar. 2. Commercial Launch Provider. You are a commercial outfit. A substantially lower annual budget than #1. You will have mostly Contracts, and maybe some Missions based upon infrastructure goals to facilitate future business. Easy to switch strategies to or from. 3. Commercial Development of Space. Another commercial company, a kind of SpaceX analog. A substantially lower annual budget than #1. They will do commercial contracts (launch, resupply, etc), but have an ultimate goal of exploitation/colonization of the solar system. They will have the usual Contracts, plus some tailored Missions related to their own goals (science and rep gain, little in the way of funding). Easy to change strategies. What others are possible?

^^^Great post. I agree entirely, particularly on part contracts. I'd be fine with part testing being part of unlocking them, but we'd need failures, or useful things to learn about the parts in testing for that. Otherwise, meaningful tests ONLY. If you get a 2.5m engine test, you require tanks to make it work well, for example, even staging decouplers. I really liked your other post, but I like to reserve "strategy" for really broad goals. From a player standpoint, more like, "Do you want to be a private contractor, or more like NASA?" I liked what you have as strategies, but I think of some of them as underlying world reality, others as good choices---you want to be a commercial contractor, but you want spaceplanes, NOT rockets, and everything aims in that direction.

Claw, I suppose what I'm getting at is to make the planetary science "make sense," in a story telling sense. Landing in every region and clicking is not all it should be. If the most narrative "feel" comes from having Linus Kerman (your program's science director according to the Strategies building) throw out a set of places his team wants surveys, or sample collections from, then that is "contract driven" but works. The key is to have those NOT be entirely random. They need to make sense. Scan the Mun FIRST, then, within scanned regions, Linus selects places for data collection. perhaps before the FIRST Mun landing, they are not procedural, but pulled from a list of desirable first landing sites (nice terrain for landing). I'm honestly unsure, but I think it's lacking now. And the repetitive Fine Print stuff adds more grind---I like many of the ideas, but I don't like them repeated, endlessly, but random. It needs a story line, or the new contracts are just different than the old, and rapidly become boring. There are some great ideas in this thread, actually. I'm saying the same thing. It is NOT different, but it matters, anyway. There would be "contracts" for 3d party, commercial stuff (primary reward funds), and the pure science would come from your own program (I'm using "Missions" for this). Unless your personal goal is 100% commercial, Missions is what the program is ABOUT, science. Contracts are a way to help pay the bills. Missions might be more like the Survey and Explore contracts we see now, muti-part, and related to one another (having chosen to to the "Prosector's Alpha, Beta, etc" survey region, your next suggestions from Linus might tend to be to illuminate those areas with further missions).

Yeah, but within their system I honestly think that contracts and missions should actually drive "science" acquisition, that or a sort of procedural system that requires certain reasonable steps for gaining science. Right now the system is like looting artifacts from a site instead of methodically recording the process to make sure they have context.

It's also still just rescue a kerbal. I want missions to repair their ship, dock and return to LKO, or refuel it. Something more interesting.

In a system with time (like KCT), rep could matter. You could then have a "national" program with an annual budget, and rep could result in increased funding.

How about the "strategies" actually become strategies, instead? I think of strategies as the overreaching goals of the program. Is the program to be a SpaceX and be a transportation service for anyone with a checkbook… up to a certain point, then switch to being something else, say? Or is it to be NASA, and only design missions for science, but have to survive with other people's money? A key variable is missing in KSP, though, TIME. If something like KCT was in game, then a strategy might be to be a "national" program, and try to operate within a budget. Commercial contracts would be for additional funds. I never use any strategies at all right now, ever, and I play mostly career (even with RSS configs, I have not played in a stock sized kerbol system in a while, if I do so in career, the entire tree is unlocked in a ridiculously short time period, even on harder "hard."

I think there should be a separation of commercial Contracts done for 3d parties (place satellite/station/base, then lose control of it), and Missions organic to your own space program. The 3d party satellites/stations/bases could then be tagged for future commercial contracts for resupply, manning, crew transfer, new modules added, repair, and even the (excellent) suggestion for deorbiting. The sats, stations, and bases built yourself, or via "Missions" your program staff suggests to you (functionally just contracts with a different label), will have similar requests for resupply, etc.

The 1950s-60s timeframe is the USA/CCCP "Space Race." The pressure to beat the other side is what drove some very kerbal choices made by both sides in that period. I think that a space race could not possibly be better suited to the premise.

Another thing, science right now is entirely useless, except as currency for tech. Useless. In 1.0, we will have our first useful science, presumably, scanning for resources. That mechanism needs to be really worked on, and made into tiers of science that depend on completing other science tasks, not just for resources, but simply for science! If we had something like that, the contract nature of science in career would be moot. First and foremost science should be USEFUL. Make the map view as vague as it should be for given worlds based upon telescope observation from Kerbin. The only way to be able to zoom in on map view would be tied to gaining orbital science (mapping). Want to unlock habitat parts? Have some total manned orbital science collected as a requirement (a totally new paradigm for science to tech would be required there). Science from surface collection in various regions? You need to map them, first, to put the geology in context. Make the planetary science interconnected, not just land, click, "Science!" Make things that egenrate data on the spot be 100% transmittable, and stuff like surface samples 0% transmittable (a later part can be a sampler for a probe that generates some amount of science for broadcast). In a perfect world, the kerbol system would have some random elements. Even if it is minor, like the exact mass, atmospheric height and density, etc being all that varies. Then you need to send a probe or astronauts to orbit FIRST, to gain the science needed for whatever your goals are (your stock lander for that world in the past won't cut it, because the gravity is now a little higher). Meh. Having a single piece of junk nearby doesn't cut it, IMO. It's exactly the same mission (except on a planet, which is good), but with a prop. Hopefully it is coded so that any craft file can be used for the rescued craft. One, such missions need a sensible way to apply them. If the player has not gone to Duna, and there is no competing program that we can pace ourselves with, I don't want to see a Duna rescue mission appear months before I am ready for Duna. Even if I was ready, I don't see a lone kerbal surviving alone in that cupola for the length of time it will take for my rescue mission to arrive. A stranded verbal on Duna should have at least a reasonable habitat, with power, etc. Otherwise they look as goofy as testing a jet engine on the mun.

The entire funding model for career is contact/mission based. As such, contracts, and KSC "Missions" should drive everything. If time mattered, then we could talk about having a budget to work within, and contracts could go away as a primary thing. Until then, they are THE mechanism we have to work with. It's important to remember that science from every "biome" (lifeless biomes, go figure) is every bit as arbitrary as a contract.

Note that if they use the model I suggest above (that stations and base contracts can be either 3d party (Contracts) or your own (Missions), then stranded kerbals can be related to those facilities for anyone hating the idea of competing programs being a thing. A 3d party station might have a Contract to deliver rescue craft to support X kerbals being evacuated, for example. Another might ask to deliver to the 3d party an orbital tug of some min requirements. Once craft are docked to the station, those craft could be procedurally stranded. Joefred Kerman used all the fuel in the tug, leaving it stranded, rescue Joefred by refueling his tug. A munar base contract might require that a lander be left at the base for their use. That lander was taken by Dunman Kerman to in vestige a crater in the polar regions… and landed poorly, now reduce him and return him to his munar base. In those examples, all rescues require no suspension of disbelief, because the player delivered those kerbals to the facility in the first place, as well as the crafts they screwed up with.

5thHorseman, yeah, that's what I was getting at at the end of my post just above. Some bases/stations are 3d party, others would be programs/missions from your own staff (Linus and Werner). You are entirely right regarding the name change that makes it clear the new parts are to be ADDED to an existing station/base. The whole base paradigm needs to allow (as we both said) for proximity to be what matters, not "docking." That or add something like KAS that allows parts to be linked via EVA (even if the link is invisible). BTW, regarding "contract" science, I'm thinking a lot in terms of GOOD parts testing. Like testing lander legs on the Mun, etc.

F4F held its own in the first year of WW2, a very even match with the A6M (Zero). Superior armament and armor allowed pilots to live and learn from mistakes (Zero pilots usually only ever made one mistake, and paid with their lives).

I disagree entirely with 5thHorseman regarding contracts and science in career mode. I think the "contracts" should help drive science. Anyway, here are ideas I posted in other threads about contracts: Generally, I'd like to see the contract system change into a two-tier system. The "Explore" and other "pure science" contracts would be considered "missions/programs" that your space center dreams up vs "contracts," which are launching satellites, testing parts for subcontractors, etc. All ideas below assume that Mission is created by your employees, and Contract is a 3d party. Right now, you get those "milestone" contracts… launch a rocket, achieve an altitude of X, etc. Many new players likely don't realize that if your first launch is overly successful, you miss out on the various altitude records contracts, etc. So how about the game has those early missions replaced with "Missions" akin to the "Explore the Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc" contracts (many would have small science rewards).: "Achieve Spaceflight!" This would be like the "Explore the Mun" contract, but the end goal would be leaving Kerbin atmosphere. Internal milestones might be: 1. Launch a rocket (same as contract now) 2. Reach 5000m (same as now) 3-5(?) Same altitude records already in game, but they are sub-requirements, so if you do 2 or more in one mission, you get credit. 6. (whatever 2d to last number is) Take a crew report, or science from space. 7. Achieve orbit Next would be: "Suborbital Science" (note that these contracts need not be taken, this set is really a cash farm for noobs, IMO. If they really screw up, they can do some of these to get back on their feet) Milestones here would be various science from points in the atmosphere, and perhaps sensible parts testing (use a parachute, etc.) Examples (add more!) 1. Take crew reports from various altitudes. 2. Safely land craft in various kerbin biomes (not too many, but water, plains, etc). 3. Stage a rocket 4. ? Next: "Orbital Spaceflight" The mission requirements here would be to put spacecraft in different orbits, some defined as satellite contracts are now, perhaps. Other missions might include rendezvous. The goal is teaching new players, so the milestones should have this in mind. I'd like the clamp-o-tron-jr to be available early for this. Perhaps very low-thrust attitude control jets very early, and only the mono in the pod? The might include, for example: 1. Place spacecraft in an inclined orbit. 2. Create a highly elliptical orbit. 3. Take science/crew reports from a couple distances. 4. Do an EVA. 5. Do an EVA where you let go of the craft. 6. (assuming a docking port and attitude control) Successfully dock. (This could be a single rocket with 2 docking ports) 7. Successfully use a maneuver node to do X. (assuming a contract can check for this---it would look for the node as "green/complete") 8. Rendezvous and dock two craft launched at least XX minutes apart. (Forcing a real rendezvous as a teaching aid) These mostly use existing mechanisms to flesh out the early game experience for new players, as well as providing guidance as to what needs to be learned. New rescue missions ideas: 1. Stranded kerbal in Kerbin orbit. Like current contract, but there is a nearby spacecraft if he is EVA. He may be in the ship that cannot reenter/return to Kerbin. The craft can be a ship, or even a station. All would have reasonable time limits, guys don't float around for years un-rescued. Longer limit if he is aboard a ship. Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc). a. Kerbal EVA has no EVA propellant, but is close by his fully functional spacecraft. Rescue him (move your hatch til you can hit F with him), then return him to his own craft. b. Kerbal has EVA propellant (0-10% at random), but has drifted too far to return. Rescue him and return to his functional craft. 2. Stranded kerbal in orbit around another world. Same as 1, above, but around another world. If he has a functional craft there, then return him to it. Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc). a. Kerbal EVA has no EVA propellant, but is close by his fully functional spacecraft. Rescue him (move your hatch til you can hit F with him), then return him to his own craft. b. Kerbal has EVA propellant (0-10% at random), but has drifted too far to return. Rescue him and return to his functional craft. 3. Stranded spacecraft in Kerbin orbit. The spacecraft is without enough fuel to return (a), or has had a serious malfunction (. Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc). a. Spacecraft is without necessary fuel to complete mission. The ship has a clampotron, and you refuel it to complete mission (amount of fuel required is in the mission request). b. Spacecraft as suffered a serious mishap. Engine doesn't work, no attitude control, etc. Dock, and return craft to a station in LKO if it exists (within EVA distance). If not, put it in a reentry trajectory, and reenter with the capsule. 4. Stranded spacecraft in orbit around another world. The spacecraft is without enough fuel to return (a), or has had a serious malfunction (. (if they add life support, then that is another missing item that would be ( c) ) Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc). a. Spacecraft is without necessary fuel to complete mission. The ship has a clampotron, and you refuel it to complete mission (this data would be in the mission request). Refuel is not to full, but enough to return set by mission (amount specified in contract). b. Spacecraft as suffered a serious mishap. Engine doesn't work, no attitude control, etc. Dock, and return craft to a station in LKO if it exists (within EVA distance). If not, put it in a reentry trajectory, and reenter with the capsule. c. Spacecraft needs life support delivered due to a mishap (or bad planning). Dock and resupply (amount specified in contract). 5. Stranded lander. The lander is without enough fuel to return to orbit (a), or has had a serious malfunction (. Mishaps would include cool wreck sites (like the opening screen, lol) a. Lander is without necessary fuel to reach orbit. IN this case it will be a lander with a CM in orbit. Return crew (or craft if you can) to the CM. b. Lander as suffered a serious mishap. Engine doesn't work, no attitude control, etc. Return crew (or craft if you are capable) to the CM. Rewards would scale to difficulty. They would include science rewards, as the player might be rescuing science collected by the competing astronauts. Satellite and station/base contract variants: 1. Place satellite/stations/bases. Satellite contracts are COMMERCIAL. As soon as the orbit is fulfilled, you lose ownership of it. The same is true for bases built by contract (offer some as missions/programs from within KSC that you would own). 2. Add to station/base. A 3d party station or base (that YOU already delivered as per #1 above) wants another component added (docked). Ideally for planetary bases, we'd have a way to merely place them within some range, not have to "dock" everything. 3. Resupply or man station/base. Player is contracted to deliver or return a 3d party kerbal or kerbals to a station or base (commercial crew ). Player might be required to deliver fuel/mono to station, or merely "dock" with a craft that includes a hitchhiker or something (a supply pod). 4. Repair satellite/station/base. A 3d party satellite, station or base (as per #1) has sustained damage and requires an engineer of level X to repair it. An appropriate, repairable part s broken in the craft you launched for that level engineer to fix on EVA.

My pet rock, Trinny. He's pretty young for a rock, he was born July 16, 1945 at 05:29:21 am.

Yeah, a Gemini-like set of parts would make more sense, including stuff like Advanced Gemini/MOL. Any addition to the 1.25m parts is a waste of time, IMO. Of course I never send 1 man pods anyplace at this point, past orbit, never go past Kerbin SoI without multiple astronauts, and enough space for them to be happy for the mission duration (on the order of 1 hitchhiker per guy, never fewer than 3 astronauts, usually 4).

Why not stock? One, it would be a kind of functionality that might have to be done at the Squad level to work efficiently. Two, it would be another game mode/option. It's like saying, "KSP is really a sandbox game, any career nonsense would be cool as a mod, but not stock KSP." Radio box in career setup, "Competitive "multiplayer" Y/N?"

I think the pods should have reentry contracts that require reentry at a certain velocity, or from a certain apoapsis/periapsis combo. Like placing a satellite with apo at some altitude, and periapsis just above the atmosphere, step 2 is to lower the periapsis to 40km (or whatever), and reenter without burning up (in 1.0, obviously). A good training contract for new players, (can pop up with a probe core unlocked, since a possible contract might be "destructive testing" where you find out how NOT to reenter.

One way to build NPC ships would be a kind of shared multiplayer. If you tick the "Space race" career game option, then there are NPC ships. It also means that YOUR ships, research, and building upgrades, are uploaded to a server (along with the game day (year 1, day 123, etc). Your game will keep some slightly randomized version if where the competing program is in time. They are at your some standard level of development +- XX days. When your game needs to create a craft for that program, it uses crafts built by other players at the right level of development. So in a sense, a form of multiplayer. Ideally, use an inland space center, and incorporate soviet-style stock alike parts, then use the opposite competitor from what the player has selected. All the craft would be sort of novel because they'd be a different program/style, and they'd be craft made by other players. The game might even sample certain entire missions of other players… if the craft fulfilled any part of the Explore the Mun contract, then THAT craft is used as the competing craft---including how it ended up (so if a player makes orbit, sends science, then has a rough landing, then bang, you get a rescue mission.

There should be more larger parts, not more tiny parts. 1.25m is too small for anything useful. It's an orbital pod capable of maybe a couple days in orbit.