tater

I think kerbals need a full pod just to hold their helmets

Converting "currency" is what the strategies are for. There is already one that converts science to funds.

Dropping any cargo except satellites makes little sense unless a destination is actually spawned in. That or you could lose ownership of stations you build for contracts, then get resupply missions to them...

You said not to have KSP "keep spawning things in my game." In my experience only 2 things are spawned into anyone's game, asteroids, and the silly, stranded kerbals (they spawn only if you chose the contract). In the case of the latter (contracts are by definition "career," btw), they are explicitly not owned by the player's program (says so in the tracking station), so they MUST come from another program (besides, as player we know WE didn't strand them). They either came in a craft, or flew there like superman Assuming they go to space the usual way, what is more likely? That they ran out of rcs, with their pod drifting nearby, or that their craft completely disintegrated miraculously leaving just the astronaut? Right now, the rescue contracts are really boring. I only ever take them if the guy has an awesome name, lol. Adding more interesting or compex rescues would be FUN, and perhaps provides novel missions for a game that doesn't have random failures. It could even provide a cool way to get new parts (if they ever made it less trivial to unlock all the tech). A craft might be rescued/salvaged and it contains a part that your engineers then copy... Just trying to think of ways to make the contracts less boring or stupid ("test jet engine underwater on the mun" ).

There are already rescue contracts for guys who clearly belong to other space programs. So you prefer that they flew to space like superman, presumably. Or, of course, you can simply never take those contracts (as you likely do not ever given that post) and nothing is spawned. If kerbals are to be stranded by the game, and you are going to take the contract, then they should bloody well have spacecraft with them most of the time as any survivable explosion will leave parts, and my own rockets leave every separated part as "debris."

Excellent ideas. There are already stranded kerbal contracts (how they got there, who knows), and the kerbals are clearly from alternate programs as you do not "own" them. I posted some ideas for new contracts here. Here are the relevant bits: Rescue missions. 1. Stranded kerbal in Kerbin orbit. Like current mission, but there is a nearby spacecraft if he is EVA. He might alternately be in the ship but it cannot reenter/return to Kerbin for some reason (unpacked chute needs engineer, lack of fuel to deorbit, etc, see #3). 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 on 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 (possibly 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). Alternately repair with engineer. If not, put it in a reentry trajectory, and reenter with the capsule. (possible engineer repairs here, stranded crew = pilot/scientist) c. Satellite in need of repair. 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. c. Lander has broken parts that can be repaired by an engineer, repair for them.

You can superimpose them in the VAB, and this pod is indeed slightly bigger. 4 seems crowded, but 3 is the mk1-2... A 2 man would be more useful (there is another modded one out there, I know). Would it be possible to do 2 man with some additional feature, like perhaps having a external "locker" that might contain science parts (where the hatch is, but on the other side)? Then at least it makes use of that extra space. Nice pod, BTW.

Heheh. It is, indeed.

Randazzo… did you play ww2ol?

No mechjeb, no KER, playing jumbo32… I have no idea what the dv maps are even like. Last night I had a new 2-man lander design to the Mun to swap scientists (I role-play rotating crews) with a base. It was made well enough to land and TO again, but I started my descent late, and had to do a little unplanned flying as I wanted to be within a few hundred meters to avoid a few km trek. Fuel was VERY low. I should have sent another mission to rescue (I don't load saves), but .... Took off, and turned downrange immediately, hopping to gain orbit… ended up achieving orbit only by burning 3/4 of my mono propellant (8xspherical tanks).

Ions are fubar unless they come up with a solution for constant thrust trajectories. Vasmir shares that issue. Stuck with the situation now, ions could have spool up/down such that they are not useful as lander engines.

Throttling is something that can be looked at for all engines, frankly (not just spool up/down). RO does this, obviously, but it is a simple way to balance various engines (even finite restarts are a possibility).

That's pretty cool. I was just rereading a bunch of papers from the late 80s and early 90s I have on the subject. They've progressed a little to be sure. My dream would be to really build proper bases in situ (regolith on top as shielding, etc).

Hehehe. I can dream, right?

Increase the size of kerbin slightly, which fixes the problem.

Serious ISRU (on airless worlds) is either a huge, industrial process, or it takes a LONG time. Anything fast enough that you can even notice a small tank filling that doesn't look like a factory or something is magical, likely.

This makes a lot of sense. I've never made a nuke lander, myself because I don't see them as lander engines.

Rover from the mid 1950s became Nerva in the early 60s. It was tested fully functional in the mid 60s. That's the problem with the tech tree, stuff really came about almost simultaneously. the trouble with many high Isp options is the inability of the game to deal with continuous thrust.

I suggested a while ago that they rename "Mission Control" to "Mission Planning," and add "Mission Control" to tracking. (Mission control and tracking)

True, if that was a mod I'd already have it installed. As Niven said, any sufficiently interesting drive is also a powerful weapon. i should add that I put Verniers pointing forward on nukes so I can brake without pointing at whatever I am attempting rendezvous with (kill most velocity off axis, then finish with RCS).

Science is no hindrance. In a system like this, choosing broad mission goals could unlock tech. Tech is developed for a purpose, not because you learned planetary science.

Nukes are supposed to be the be all end all in vacuum. Split atoms, not wood.

Nerva Isp in game is already low in atmosphere, and about right for vacuum. The test nerva (a friend's dad actually worked on it here in los alamos (tested in nevada at the test site)), and they ran it 28 minutes at full power, (and around couple hours total). Not many in-atmosphere burns in KSP that exceed 28 minutes are possible, lol. Nukes should be used for everything in open space, frankly. That was NASA's plan in the 60s On topic, aren't the jets simply absurd?

My current is a "normal" career with dead is dead, and maybe another box unchecked (can load it to check right now). I only ever revert or use saves if there is a bug (or I notice no chutes while on launchpad ). That's on jumbo32 (3.2X RSS setup), though, and I was unsure about what I'd need money wise (did the same with 64X). As is true in all KSP career games I've messed with funds only matter at the very beginning, then you swim in them (I don't use the strategies at all, all they do is make even more money, faster I think).

Agreed, I've proposed something similar. "Contracts" for science should be Linus and Werner suggesting missions for your program. You'd pick a broad mission set (explore the mun) which would then open all the suggestions you make above as what would now be "contracts.