tater

2.6 rpm, still pretty fast. For habitats on limited duration flights, the goal could be a very low centripetal acceleration, but O'neil colonies for long-term habitation were meant to be higher. I don't recall, but O'Neil cylinders were on the order of over a km in radius, right? Still very cool, but if you are going to make a single part that is a colony, I'd rather have to loft parts to make a workshop, parts landed on the Mun or Minmus to mine (and mass drivers), then have the structure build itself in orbit, whereupon we can fly new colonists to it ourselves.

Changing transmit rates, etc, is just more of the same. There needs to be a paradigm shift. There are really 3 types of relevant science for KSP. "Basic" or "pure" science, which in KSP is largely planetary science (though clearly physics and astrophysics are in there as well). Medical science, which in KSP terms is the medical aspects of spaceflight (life support, physiological implications of low g, radiation, etc). Spaceflight science, which would be the applied science (engineering) of rocketry, etc. Any manned mission could generate Medical science at a low level (testing physiological response to weightlessness, etc). In RL, the medical aspects saturated fairly quickly in terms of knowledge gained (I chatted with Dr. William Douglas, the Mercury flight surgeon numerous times about space medicine before he died (he lived here in town).) So steep increase in understanding, then it sort of levels off. Still, you could fold aspects of life support into medical to broaden the need for "points" there. Spaceflight science can also be gained via almost any mission you could imaging, even the parts testing stuff. Really, the basic science should not provide points for tech at a high level, which either means devaluing those points, or having each tech node use a multi-point system (new lander can needs 50% spaceflight science points, 40% medical, and 10% planetary, while a new fuel tank and engine node requires 100% spaceflight science, and 0% anything else, etc). Heck, I like the idea of more science specific to a given world. Orbital science (visual surveys, or ideally cameras) increases the map resolution, and then shows vague areas where (in 1.0) resources MIGHT be. Then landing or other science points built up within those areas unlocks the actual location where you need to mine. This makes reasonable tiers of data collection (broad surveys, leading to the requirement for other instruments to be employed to narrow the area). That's what I'd prefer.

Needs to spin at 4.7 rpm for 1 g at that tiny size. Needs to be vastly larger. - - - Updated - - - Nothing like this should EVER be launched into orbit, it should be BUILT in orbit.

Senator John Glenn did fly to space again, on STS-95. He specifically decided to leave the program himself after Mercury to run for political office. Glenn would certainly have flown again had he remained in the program.

I did, but the data then doesn't tell what % never used autopilot for anything.

HST is not a Newtonian, it is a Cassegrain. (the focal point is behind the primary, not radial to the secondary). - - - Updated - - - We know we are going to have some sort of scanning (I suppose I should try Karbonite to get a feel for this), so presumably this can be utilized by any "camera" tech that we assume exists. Does Karbonite use specialized detectors for resources, or does it take a better approach (for science in KSP), and have layers of data? Ideally---not just for realism, but for "science gameplay"---you'd expect to "scan" visually, then perhaps land instrumentation, collect surface samples, etc. That would be the ideal way to find where you need to look for resources (if they are discrete, like water). Obviously if the resource is just scraping huge amounts regolith into a machine that knocks the Oxygen, etc off, then the fidelity required is far less. Still, it seems like a "useful" role for cameras, though I would still like to see an interaction with map view on a broader level for simple landing operations (fly from the ship POV (external or IVA) exclusively unless you have imaged the landing site ahead of time with cameras/telescopes).

Cameras and telescopes are functionally the same for all intents and purposes in game, they only offer differing resolution. (I doubt they would then get into more instrumentation like spectrometers, photometers, etc). I'm more interested in the smaller instruments since the focus of KSP is to actually visit worlds, rather than a Kerman Space Telescope that does loads of science from Kerbin orbit (science is too easy to get anyway). Makes more sense if there was "fog of war," but we sent probes to outer planets before we had the HST, and I'd presume the tech level for KSP would not be dissimilar.

Shouldn't there be a "I've never used an autopilot for anything" category (or "I've learned everything without an autopilot")?

More would be better. Duna needs craters as well, atmosphere could alter the minimum size created.

Yes, all airless bodies should be cratered

The trouble with imagining other systems is that science, tech, budget, facilities, and contracts are all woven together, and touching most any element in a meaningful way means touching all of it. On top of that, the only reward system in the game is unlocking tech right now, and it is so easy to unlock all the tech before you leave kerbin SoI. I'd like to see the end-game fleshed out a little. I think sort of within the current paradigm (including stuff for 1.0 we know about) they should consider the following: Have some tech tree or facility items that are unlocked not via science points, but have more complex requirements. IF you have unlocked some range of tech in the tree, AND you have a base on the Mun that supports XX kerbals AND that base has X ISRU capability, power, etc, THEN it unlocks "Munar facilities." You pay for that (funds), and then within XXX meters of your base you select a spot and it builds a munar facility that is permanent (a tab to start), then others are offered over time that can replace your landed base parts, and eventually allow building some craft in situ, etc. Models would be easy, since they'd be covered with regolith as shielding, anyway, so they are just dirt piles with the odd airlock and maybe window and antenna sticking out.

I detailed a set of possible rescue missions a while ago.

I'm not averse to a system where you use pulldowns to set targets, but in effect you are doing exactly the possible missions available as a list in my suggestion, it's just less space consuming to have the pull downs. The whole science = tech advancement paradigm is wrong-headed, however. IN reality, you'd pick a mission goal as a program, and then get funded or not, and if you needed new tech, that would be part of what you were asking for funds for (to research the needed tech). What interested parties would bid to fund a mission to collect Mun rocks? Why? If an entity wants to pay money for rocks, you'd think they might decide which rocks you collect, right? ("Collect EVA and surface samples from the Kerby's Knob region of the Mun") In your example above, though, how is it different than ignoring the contracts that you don't like, and taking the one that asks for "Science from Duna orbit" because that;s what you actually want to do? I'm not really at odd with a completely player-driven space program mission, but I think it requires an entirely different career system, and if the player is going to drive it, why is the tech tree so bizarre? I want to drive my program to the Mun, but I have to collect surface samples from Kerbin to gain the science I need to buy a ladder, lol. Have tech cost funds to develop, and often also science. So you want a Mun program, and you decide you need certain tech. You spends funds to get what you need, but some tech requires money AND science. Make the science specific, though. Parachutes require atmospheric science or parts testing. Lander cans and legs require some sort of mun surface mission (a probe?) to make sure they won't sink in the dust, etc (what Surveyor was for). The trouble is that the science to tech system we have is likely not going away, so novel career ideas are not really possible, IMO.

Then play science mode. You seem to have entirely missed the point of my post. Or are you suggesting a budget system? That is far more complex. You're talking sandbox, but with an annual budget, I suppose. Except time does't matter at all in KSP, so that won't work (it would require something like KCT). A budget system requires something like KCT, and one that is really calibrated to the budget vs time issue. Failures should possibly decrease your budget, or even get you canceled (assuming everyone's program is a national, not commercial program). If funds, and science = tech unlock is a thing (I'm not fond of the latter, myself), then how else do you assign funds? Winning funds AFTER doing something is silly, programs are funded in advance (or advance per year). In game terms, that requires picking the mission ahead of time. That they call them "contracts" is indeed dumb. All the pure science stuff should be renamed (as I said above) to "missions" or "programs" which would be assumed to be generated by your own program. Fro what you wish there are finite programs. Science from each body in the game, and bases orbiting or landed on each body in the game (minus landing on Kerbol, obviously). That's it, there is nothing more to KSP, the number of possible "missions" you have can be created from that finite list. So present the player with that list to chose from as their mission goals in career. Each can have a reasonable time limit to accomplish without penalty (and make the penalty really matter). The player then choses that his program wants to "Explore the Mun" and gets a wad of funds to do so. As I said above, contracts should be exclusively satellite launches, etc. Minor stuff to raise revenues if needed, not the goal of your program (unless you really like doing that, then knock yourself out). How can career possibly "set the challenge?" There are NO limits without the silly contracts (which I also dislike because they are so badly done). Science is trivial to get in KSP. Without the contract system how would you get funds as your financial limitation? It cannot possibly be an annual budget, as you can unlock the entire tech tree in a couple game-months. If the budget was too restrictive to do that, you'd build a couple rockets, then time warp to next year for more funds?

And the fact that it is called exactly the same thing (Vehicle Assembly Building).

While I don;t like this idea, it's entirely fair to say that the contracts he suggests are no more silly/dumb than a fair percentage of the stock contracts (test a turbojet engine on the mun, for example).

"Revert" for basic design failures (or forgetting to put parts on, or the staging screwed up, etc) is not functionally much different from "simulation." KCT has simulation at launch, which costs a small amount of funds per try, and works well to distinguish testing a design at the space center (on paper in the old days, computer later) from actually launching it. With KCT I never revert at all, without it, I will do so if I screw up staging or have the wrong crew aboard, or if the SRBs don't properly separate (even though I have radial decouplers AND 2 sepratrons per SRB).

Wow, more contracts I'd have to decline 100% of the time. What we need are sensible contracts.

This would effectively not be career mode… face it, the entire career system is fubar, imo. I'm not against the player driving the space program, however. One, separate Programs/Missions from "Contracts." (and "Mission Control" in game is named wrong, it's mission planning/business office as it is, and the tracking station is mission control) Contracts are parts testing*, and satellite launches almost entirely. Later, I suppose it might be making mining bases for 3d parties. That said, any craft launched for a 3d party… should belong to that 3d party. You cannot reuse them, because you do not own them (though you might get commercial contracts to resupply or repair them). *Note that all idiotic parts testing contracts should be expunged. Only sensible contracts should remain. There can be tests on the Mun… "Test the Mk1 Lander Can for dust infiltration on the Mun." (land, then return it) Test decouplers at altitudes where you'd expect to actually use them, etc. Programs and Missions WITHIN your own program should Be generated by the player, but I think that sans an entire budgetary and R&D system that makes sense, it likely needs to be thrown at us, but in a very broad way. All the "Explore" and milestone "contracts" fall within mission/program selection. Those should drive the basic/pure science (which in KSP is pretty much planetary science). Some parts testing, and "spaceflight science" stuff is also within this aegis (stations, and other "man (erm, kerbal) in space" type stuff). Example Programs the player could be offered (funds would be heavier in advance as "budget," and even some science points might be advanced to develop needed tech (since the (broken) science driving tech paradigm is likey staying)): Beginning Rocketry (altitude milestones here) Achieving Orbit (title goal, but might have milestones for unmanned vs manned, science, satellites, reentry, etc). Orbital Spaceflight (rendezvous, eva, docking, orbital changes, etc.) Explore the Mun Explore Minmus etc. - - - Updated - - - There is nothing wrong with Snacks! There is no real reason to not turn the entirely of the LS equation down to what mass of consumables needs to be added to the system poet unit time. Waste can be recycled to some level, then removed. Whatever is lost (say 90% efficiency, then you need to add back that 10% to not lose ground). It all comes down to mass. Note that you can easily alter the cfg to have snacks kill. I'm messing with IFLS now, but it's not really dissimilar (we can argue exactly how many kg/time unit additional mass is required per kerbal, but that's debatable among all the LS mods, really).

Or a cargo module/service module that treats the mass of any cargo within as centered. Then you could make a science module and be done.

I'd still like a stock-a-like piece like this for bases. What would be cool would be for it to compress on the z axis so that you could easily bring several to use.

Virtual 3d is not 3d… I'm thinking 3d (toys or something). Fits another dimension.

I also run KIDS. I'm not really interested in having a mod fly for me.

Here's a reality check on the current map view. I picked a lander on the Mun, and zoomed out from there. First image is the best possible zoom. I think that with good imagery from orbit (or in a perfect world even an impacter probe sending back images like Ranger did, as long as it was limited to the area imaged), the zoom level should allow resolution that eventually equals the "real" view. Zoomed out a little from our lander (looks about like it does from low orbit here: The MUn should start with resolution at least this good (really better), though ideally not of the far side. The whole Mun visible: I'd expect the Minmus images from the surface of Kerbin to be about this good at the very least. Distant: This is better than one would expect for images of Duna, Dres, etc from Kerbin, honestly. When you go to a world past the Mun (and Minmus) Something like this is as close as you should be able to zoom to any body. It might have to be set far enough away that you cannot cheat to look at distant moons any closer if they exist.

If you are using KJR, then check the thread, and use a link (a few pages from the end of the thread) about finding the current dev version, which instantly solves the problem.