tater

I agree here 100%. I think the gameplay would be better, not worse <shrug>. I like having ways things can go wrong, it's often the most fun. There should be some small, command-pod sized, low thrust RCS units pretty much right away in the tech tree. RCS is required for rendezvous, and that really needs to be the next step in player training after achieving orbit. Both Gemini and Soyuz/Progress took this path as it creates meaningful OPTIONS for early career players---direct ascent vs kerbin or mun rendezvous, or even multiple lanchs to create the craft (both USA and CCCP considered this option).

Looks fine. My daughter (11) thinks she's awesome.

So true. More stuff in general that folds up or telescopes.

^^^ Particularly since you need shielding for ambient radiation in space, anyway (not to mention a storm cellar).

Yeah, an offset hatch is a good thing, and the pilot position on the Mk1-2 is good. All the other parts need to change if the goal is to line up (Hitchhiker, Lab, etc). Regardless, they need to be consistent.

The ring would be used to build an RCS tug, only one with 8 fewer parts than the one you link to (if RCS/ASAS were combined in the same ring, otherwise the savings is 6 parts). His real point was to reduce part count. Note that such rings would drop the count on every ship ever near a station by 2-3 (you'd still need individual parts to get the RCS near the CM in many cases). Actually, that gives me an idea. Is it possible to have dynamically balanced RCS systems? That might be a nice later addition to the tech tree. The craft would adjust the RCS thrust if you have multiple sets of RCS such that it always rotates about the current CM...

Shielding is not a huge issue. If you look at reference designs (for solid core, vapor core, particle bed, whatever) the tankage in obviously in front, which helps provides distance so that shielding (a separate shield just forward of the actual reactor) can be minimal. There might also be structure to increase that distance. I use NTRs in KSP, but I try to make them look reasonable and separate the living quarters. I agree with them not being ideal ferries due to boil off (got to assume H2 propellant), I think of them as main propulsion for long planetary missions, primarily. Really, you'd want bimodal for power, too. Some of the much more complex designs than Rover/NERVA offer substantial increases in Isp, such that more useful propellants can be considered while maintaining better Isp than chemical.

It would be nice if whatever RCS the EVA uses (compressed gas?) was what was in the pod, and that got used up. I'd like to see the game ad a very low thrust RCS cluster very early in the tech tree with some program/mission/contract (I hate the term contract) support for orbital maneuvering with RCS as a learning tool for new players.

I've been saying something similar as well, though I used "missions" vs programs (same thing). All the pure science should be KSC driven, not "contractual."

Wow, I entirely missed this thread when I posted something similar/related here. My idea was to take some of those earlier achievement "contracts" and replace them with those like the milestone contracts ("Explore the Mun," etc). Was thinking they should lump all the altitude ones into "Achieve Spaceflight," then maybe add "Suborbital science" (various science missions below orbit), and ideally add some orbital missions that require plane changing, EVA, rendezvous, etc (as training for new players---think verbal Project Gemini here)).

The larger issue going forward is perhaps getting rovers, particularly specialized varieties, to the destination. I manage now with FAR, and larger than stock worlds, but I intentionally make rovers mostly pretty small. I would like to be able to move habs around to create larger bases, but the task of making sufficiently large rovers/cranes/etc to maneuver them around is daunting if I do not wish to make really absurd looking rockets. Yeah, I can put the habs on their own wheels, but it's not my favorite aesthetic.

Does only the ring have a crew capacity? OK, many don't have it listed in the usual place in the VAB, since they only have the capacity when deployed. They are 4 and 6 (huge one) crew for the other 3.

Because it's not yet the late 1950s?

Too bad, that's what I'm currently playing Least I can bang away on it until 1.0.

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" that your program dreams up vs "contracts," which are launching satellites, testing parts for subcontractors, etc. 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 "contracts" 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.

They should have a much lower heat tolerance for whatever the reentry system is. In general, I'd prefer a more nuanced impact system. Since we now have "engineers," lets make things break more if repairable. The "part explodes" impact speed could be at X, and the damage value substantially lower for parts based upon what it is. For a lander can, damage might disable the reaction wheels, lose any mono, etc. (again, an engineer can hop out and fix it) There is no "science" reason to return lander cans to kerbin at all. You can take the science from the can, or any instruments, and transfer to a capsule. - - - Updated - - - Because having them both under a week from your first launch isn't fast enough? The problem is endemic to the entire tech tree. Buying new stuff is a good reward system, but it doesn't actually make any sense (a mission is picked, and tech is developed to do that mission, in KSP, you do missions to get tech after the fact). That said, I entirely agree.

I agree completely, but there can always be room for abstraction I suppose. If you used what will be stock ISRU, as long as you don't take the same gear to different places, you can simply assume that whatever gear you take is specific to the locale you actually land at. Land on the Mun, and you are, dunno, scraping regolith extracting hydrogen and oxygen. On another body, you might be going for water ice. Just don't pack up the lot and cart it from one world to the next. I could see using it, but I'd be likely to do so in a more role-playing way. I'd require a substantial infrastructure on the body (I think in terms of scarping large tonnages of soil up, so habitation (with LS) for many kerbals, rovers delivered (that look like front loaders, perhaps), etc. I'm not terribly interested in the "Mr. Fusion" version. Presumably there will be some cool mods around this.

Very true. Look at the shadow there, as well, the sun is quite low. At the same sun angle in KSP on the Mun you's want the light s on, probably.

More nukes is a mostly nod to the gameplay problem of tedious, long burns (or places where thrust is actually desirable like circularizing, as the burn time is limited by impending reentry). Ions cannot be compared to real ions at all, as they need constant acceleration trajectories in RL Modern, real life NTR designs usually have multiple engines, though this is partially a nod to safety through redundancy I think.

I think many of are discussing manned rovers. The Apollo rover was designed to max out at ~3.6 m/s as a reality check for people (13 kph).

I made a couple to do seismic surveys on the Mun and Minmus, the latter being tricky, gravity wise (this is a Jumbo32 career, though, so the worlds are bigger and maybe more gently sloping). I used a mk1 lander can as the cockpit (I wanted some life support). I ended up trying something new and used 4 aircraft landing gear, and then a winch (I have KAS in this game) underneath with 2 rover wells stuck to that for propulsion (so it has 6 wheels, with the middle pair driving). I rarely go very fast, maybe 8m/s, max, usually more like 5. As a result, on some long moves to a survey site, I used time compression. Long story short, I braked under physics warp (as I have done many times), while almost simultaneously dropping to 1:1 time. Rover hit a bump or something. Cartwheeling wreck (though moving quite slow at that point). Knocked solar panels off, but I have 1600 battery. Knocked the winch and the driver wheel pair off, and the docking ring on top. I'm maybe 10km from my lander/base, and thinking about rescue options given life support issues (can fly the lander that has a probe core if need be, and it should still make orbit for Minmus Station above, so it's not a huge emergency). I remembered KAS and had a thought (this is the first time I've used that mod, and I added the winch just cause it was cool, and the right height for the wheels). I EVAed, and decided to try to fix the rover. I ended up attaching the 2 small rover wheels to the side of the rear 2 aircraft gear fairings, then retracted the rear gear. The rover was able to function, and made the 10km back with a little juice in the batteries to spare. I'd still prefer to be able to have them be more, well, stable, and right now the gyros flipping them is at least as goofy as them flipping so easily. Every rover I have made has had a nasty crash at some point---though I only make small rovers that I can transport on rockets that look like rockets with reasonable fairings, so that's a caveat.

I'm doing KCT, and with "upgrades," the time constraints are pretty minor, actually. I'm not sure it has ever taken more than maybe 20-somethign days to build a rocket, and usually more like a week at most. I'm not yet ready for Duna (my KCT game is Jumbo32 (3.2X Kerbol system), FAR/DRE/Snacks(altered cfg for dead kerbals)/KIDS, and I'm approaching a decent Duna window on year 4. Normally I'd be ready for Duna long before a launch window, but 4 years is certainly better than 4 weeks. I landed on the Mun in dim light the first landing, resulting in a tipped over lander (sloping crater wall), and it was non-trivial to build a rescue ship in time given life support and lack of parts. That was fun, actually.

This has been beaten very much past dead before, but there is no relationship between "realism" and fun at all in terms of game physics. None. The math underneath is a black box to some players, changes to wards better (more realistic) math has negative connotations only to those already used to the previous system. Any new player would dimly learn the way the game works, and build slightly different rockets form the start. Bottom line is that realism can be more fun or less fun depending on how it is done, and unrealistic additions can be more fun or less fun as well. Generally, I think matching real world expectations/outcomes is less frustrating, because we are used to the real world. Most people coming to another game we know were likely looking around for "health," didn't stop us from subscribing for XX years. I'd still be subbed there if the changes were towards more, rather than always less realistic.

Yeah, I typoed million for billion. Bottom line is that the single largest manned contributions to basic science have been moon rocks (certainly cheaper via probe), and repairing the HST---which is itself a probe and only needed repair due to a flaw. That's it. I think it is fair to assign 100% of Hubble service mission costs to Hubble, as that's literally the only really good science associated with shuttle (other satellites launched are still "probes," so only thinGS like repair that require a human get to count. Again, manned flight is awesome, and it inspires me in ways probes don't, but it has nothing at all to do with maximizing science.

I'm not a revert person for legitimate failures (I will do so when, say, SRBs that should separate with radial decouplers don't do what they claim). ANy of my unplanned disassemblies have resulted in the capsule surviving anyway. I'm not sure any situations exist in KSP where they are needed.