tater

1.25 m is spam in a can. There is simply not enough room, IMO. I'd rather see some love on the larger end sizes, frankly.

Rings a km in cross-sectional radius?

As my kids are in private school, it's a subject that is starting to come up. Many of our social group are science people (Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos, and UNM) or docs. The private schools are not big on AP, they maintain that all their courses are high-level, and that good schools don't take the AP as credits anyway (they look for admission, nothing else). Dunno. Something that has come up repeatedly is that the only school that matters is the last one you went to. Spending a mint on a high-end undergrad institution only matters if your graduate education is equal or better school wise. State school undergrad and Caltech for PhD trumps high-end undergrad with a state school for grad school, basically. If your PhD is from Mississippi, no one cares that you did undergrad at Harvard---they won't even know unless you tell them, and telling about lower school makes you look like a chump, anyway, lol. That you know what interests you is FAR more important than where, IMO. People tend to focus on undergrad location more than what they want to study. Where ever you end up, work hard, for your discipline, you'll want a graduate degree, anyway, so think in terms of maximizing your chance of a good grad school, undergrad is a stepping stone.

Cutscenes have no place in any type of game, frankly. They are anachronism to a time when making anything decent looking required a pre-render, and even then they were jarring.

Other than actually animating something happening in game, I don't want to see it, period. My craft, as built, rolling out to the pad? I'd be fine with that… of course I use KCT, so I expect a roll out time, but I also warp through it. If time were meaningful in game, and perhaps you have multiple launch pads, then you could launch with another vehicle rolling out to a different pad... I'd be fine with kerbals crawling around on buildings undergoing construction (upgrade) as well. I don't want to be switched to some view of them, they should juts be there, doing what they do.

Nothing that could possibly be launched from Kerbin is large enough to be a real orbital colony.

Magnetometer. It's more orbital science, but there is already too much science anyway… what USE an item should have in game should be what drives most "science" IMO. The whole science=tech thing is a problem because we run out of tech to buy so very quickly.

Yeah, the current LES is entirely useless, I've never actually used it in game for real, I messed with it once for testing, and decided it was pointless.

Something I would skip 100% of the time.

I assume the seismometer is placed, then a separate impactor is used? I see no reason to require a scientist (or even a kerbal) to place it. In general, I think that having to wait to unlock science instruments is bizarre. Can land on another world… can't figure out a thermometer, but can figure out some more complex experiments. The whole set of instrumentation needs to be evaluated outside the box. I think science transmission should be more based upon data sent (via coms) than just the experiment. Clearly sample return has little no no transmission value, but pictures depend on the data rate (lower data rate, fewer good pics sent, or more, crappy images sent). Perhaps science communication can be done out of focus after a fashion? (hit send, do something else, revisit craft later and it dumps the transpired time worth of data). Have experiments generate science per unit data. So you can have stuff that makes huge amounts of data quantity, but low science per unit data. This requires bringing the experiment back to Kerbin (full science upon landing), or you can broadcast, but it might take years to dump the data. I want to see: Communications realism bump. 1. Complex satellite relays should not be required, but meaningful differences in antennas, and a simple LOS check (assume Kerbin-wide ground stations are available). This impacts probes, since they might need an orbiter relay if they are farside from Kerbin. Omnis from the start, high gains soon afterwards (maybe make a non-folding version very soon, then the folding a little later). Any connection could be stored, and rebroadcast later, though, no need for instantaneous relays I think. Camera (these ideally would work like scansat or something, regardless all transmittable, but data rate should matter) 1. Wide field camera. Available from the start. Improved science gained by lowering orbit. Broad survey. Past the scansat type useful science, perhaps coverage of the planet could equal science gain (each % of surface imaged equals 1 science, weighted up or down based on altitude?) 2. Hi-res camera. Available from the start, or soon thereafter. More narrow field. Specific "visual observation" contract type instrument using current "contracts" as an example (even if I don't like the science contracts to be 3d party). Hi-res images make X science per % of the world imaged. 3. Transmission should be set such that the data rate of the antenna matters. You can scan the whole world, but if it takes a month to cover the whole planet and 100 years to transmit, not terribly useful. If you send an impactor with a camera (like Ranger) you need to have the coms capable of sending the images before it hits. Assign a size per pic to above cameras, and a data rate per antenna type. Thermometer Less science per use than now, particularly if geomes/regions are going to matter (temp on airless worlds depends on sunlight, period). Available from the start. Ideas above are OK, except on airless worlds where there should not be much variation. Also, importantly, the data is just a number, so 100% transmittable, but set science value per unit data generated so bit rate matters (this is low bit rate stuff, though). Goo Whatever. This should be a later experiment than the above few, not the first. Have it generate large amounts of data per unit science, so that the transmission rate matters a lot. Land it for full value, or transmit from orbit for a LONG time. Might have a transmit cap, too, unlike most remote sensing to force bringing it back. Barometer Again, a simple experiment that should be available right away. Parachutes that care about pressure, but no barometers? Really? Ideas above for generating science are good, science per unit data can be tweaked as needed. Data is numbers, 100% transmit. Science Jr. Some good ideas above, but again, switch to a science per unit data model, and have it generate huge volumes of data so that landing it makes sense as well as perhaps a cap requiring a lab or landing. This can be a later part. Gravmax Sets of accelerometers? I suppose a later part. Good ideas above. Data is numbers, so 100% transmittable, though (adjust via science per data and coms). Seismometer Good ideas above, but no reason it needs to be placed by a person that I can see. You could perhaps make a multiplier if placed by a scientist, and set the base science a little lower to encourage such placement. Data, again, is numbers, so 100% transmission, balanced via data rate. EVA reports Here is where skill matters. EVA reports should have science based upon the science skill of the astronaut generally. Note that the "Explore" contract could give substantial science for the first EVA report regardless of astronaut type. The first impressions of Jeb are scientifically useful, bit for later region/geome/biome hopping, you need a scientist or don't bother. If the current is 25 (40?) per region as an example, I'd say that is what a level 5 science kerbal gets, so 5(8) for a lvl 1 scientist, and perhaps 1 per level for non-scientists. Sample Collection 1. Like the EVA report above. It is 120 right now, so that would be the best possible scientist, 24 science per level. 0% transmission*. Explore contract can make it so first collection gets a large amount of science, but further collection wants a scientist (adjust the amounts so that it's valuable for pilots/engineers, but much more with scientist. 2. Add a slightly later part that can collect samples for return (0% transmission) for probes. 3. Add a yet later part that collects and analyzes soils. 100% transmission but requires good coms, and the science is much less per collection than real sample return.

Map view could have layer toggles. You need visual mapping to get detailed map zoom visually. Radar mapping might be added to provide more accurate altitude data. Gravimetric, seismic, and collection should be required for any ore marking on the map---though visual might illuminate places that are good bets to check further.

I have no idea on the size for a mod… It seems like if it were properly "vernal" inside, and decorated with trees, etc, it would drag our machines to a screeching halt anyway. If it was not cool inside… it's sort of pointless. Maybe you'd view the inside not from the actual inside, but from a room near the rotational axis where the docking port is. Dunno what you'd do regarding the light from the sun coming in, though...

Still cool, but I don;t see much use for late-game new science instruments. Of course, "late game" in terms of tech tree in KSP currently means maybe 2 months from Jeb discovering fireworks.

I think from the perspective of a player, what I want first is for it to be useful in gameplay, as in changing the map zoom, allowing me to see geomes (or whatever we want to call them minus BIOLOGY that is explicit in biome), knowing the atmosphere height precisely, etc., instead of being "points" used to buy tech. Secondly, I'd like it to be more involved than sending a crew report, clicking an experiment, etc. Scansat is how the orbital stuff should be done for visual mapping, and possibly an analog for other science done from orbit. You'd at least then need to place sats in orbits that cover the areas you want to explore further. Perhaps as you gain science on a given world you unlock what is basically the wiki page on it, but throw some gaming bones as well. When you send a probe and analyze the atmosphere and gravity of Duna more precisely than was available from Kerbin, you unlock an in-game aerobraking addition to the maneuver nodes (when your conic intersects the atmosphere, it gets properly altered based upon your craft). There is a reason for a recon mission with cool science experiments. Someone posted that a mod uses seismometers along with impacts? That or they suggested it. Great idea. I just want more to do... I get the "Science!" notion. It could be color coded, not named, if you prefer. Blue for medical, green for planetary, red for explosions, erm, rocketry.

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.