tater

Much wrong physics wise (how were they being overtaken by debris? If it was a crossing orbit, the chances of them seeing it again would have been small). The horsing around… golfballs, singing on the moon… unlikely, but certainly not impossible. The lack of proper, cooling undergarments was glaring, but I was fine with that, I preferred the yoga shorts

They should have vast wings… radiators. The trouble with sic-fi ships is that they have these massively powerful drives, and directed energy weapons using gigawatts, and they have no radiators. Every watt needs to be radiated, or ships like those would be glowing white in no time.

Nice list. I also like the fact that many of these might be repaired by engineers, giving them something useful to do.

Awesome. Will keep messing around

Squad has typically said they don't want to give to much data, however. That is why a mission might be a good way. Or Werner or Linus popping up within a few weeks of a good window and mentioning that an efficient time to launch to Duna is coming up. Another might do the same for shortest transit time (vs lowest dv). I think ANY such planner is better than none, even if it only points at the optimum window, it need only say that this is the time when you need the least fuel/dv to get to the target, vs the rest of the year when it is possible, but less efficient. Perhaps the tracking station could have a "mission planner" area where you place an orbit, then get to add nodes to it, and check the dv needed there.

Columbia's anniversary is coming up as well. My wife and I were in bed that morning, awake, and heard a huge "thump." I went to the living room, and checked the large picture window that looks out over the city, expecting to see a large bird print (hawk, vulture, or eagle, the thump was very loud), and a stunned bird on the patio. Nothing. Went outside. Heard a rumbling, no bird. Not long after, we had the radio on and the news said there was a problem with the shuttle reentry. As it turns out, Columbia flew right over Albuquerque, and the thump was a sonic boom. She was already well into the process of breaking up, and they did some searches for wreckage in the mountains just behind my house (never found any). Another sad day.

You seem to be missing the point. You used a tool. So only people who know of the tool, or go here, or google it should get to know? Why would that tool not be available to the player---any player? THAT is the point, that the tools should be included. For new players in career, I think it would be great to let them know when an optimum window is, in fact. They are limited in parts, and it offers the best chance at success since they might have some extra dv to play with.

In a perfect world, career would randomize the Kerbol system, including the size of worlds, atmospheres, etc. Say everything but Kerbin. Replay on career needs "fog of war."

My girlfriend came in and told me the shuttle exploded while I was shaving. I was not amused at her making jokes like that… only to find out it was true. Sad day.

This is a great idea. Basically have "encyclopedia" information on the various worlds unlock as a function of science gained near those worlds. Seriously, good idea. If you get within SoI of a world, you get mass, orbital data. You might unlock biome maps after orbiting, etc.

The contracts (though I hate that word for scientific missions that should in fact be planned by your own space program) could absolutely offer missions that are predicated on good launch windows. Why should a player have to use something outside the game to learn when efficient windows are? How are new players supposed to learn what to look for? (any such information should be inside the stock game, so any "check the internet" answers, including mod downloads are non-starters, IMO) I think letting people know is a great idea. "Send a Probe to Jool" text of mission then says there is a low delta v transfer window opportunity around days XXX-YYY. Great learning tool for people.

Yeah, I proposed a slightly different system. Not capable of activity = - Capable at the most minimal level = 0 Actual skill levels = 1 to 5 Each astronaut would have all 3. Their primary skill would start at at least 1, and would go to 5. They could raise the other two skills to 0. (gameplay goal is to encourage multiple astronauts on some missions). So Jeb is P1, E-, S0

The point is the real rover folded up and was assembled/unfolded in situ. There are things we cannot do in radially conservative ways in KSP, sadly. The fact that docking is wobbly makes that less than desirable as well, and CM is always an issue. What about other landers? Duna? Eve? Laythe? How wide is that 3.75m base fairing, again?

Yeah, I get it. I want failures, but I want them to be not terribly frequent, and then future parts are even less likely to fail assuming you diagnose the problem (perhaps a job for an engineer? Dunno if that is accessible to mods, but that might be interesting).

Well, surface collection should do basically zero transmitted, IMO. Least without a lab.

So now I have to have bizarre design limitations in the other direction (more, rather than less absurd). No, I want Apollo 15-17. A small, 2 man rover, and a 2 man lander. So I have to do some absurd dock with rover maneuver(s) because a slightly larger fairing is not realistic or constraining enough? - - - Updated - - - What is the fairing limit? Do you chose? such that it is .1 m bigger than your own lander/rover design? What are your suggested sizes? Are all landers now going to be one lander can, one tank below, and gear until you get a size 3 base?

It;s been stated in a few threads on skills. Make science skill a multiplier, and massively slash base science awards. Get 10 science if Jeb grabs it, get 60 if Bob (Bill?) does.

Yeah, I don't disagree, as again, it doesn't alter any of my designs all that much. We are limited in a sort of broken way, however, by KSP. Look at rovers. Look at the real LEM. That's not possible in KSP, and you have to design an absurd contraption to land a rover. If you hang it on the side, you better hang 2 for balance. Now you have a lander that might well fit in a fairing for a 2.5m base… but not with 2 entirely assembled rovers hanging off the side. I should not be compelled to launch rovers then have to dock with them in space, that's just nuts. As an example, set a few "standard sizes, then see how that works for actual designs. Might not affect all of us, just playing devil's advocate.

Fairings are entirely different, as they enclose meta-parts entirely designed by the player.

The point is that if you want standard fairings, why shouldn't the player design them?

It was actually a class on lunar bases, not planetary geology. He taught a few about lunar geology, then the resource utilization people (largely Los Alamos guys) took it from there (fused regolith, lunar concrete, etc).

Yep. Gotta love when your guest prof in planetary geology says "Here is a microscopic cross section of lunar regolith collected in such and such crater." "Next slide, please." "Here's me next to a big rock on the moon."

Every Apollo mission collected rocks. Only one included a geologist.

In KSP we do none of that. We slap it on, and if it works, we don't have exploding wreckage. The same massive planning, simulation, and testing you refer to would in fact apply to every single aspect of rocket design that in KSP is not a thing. It's a non-argument, IMO. Real fairing sizes, to the extent they are not in fact arbitrary standardization are set by AERODYNAMICS. That is what should set them in KSP. If the atmosphere of Kerbin allows ridiculous fairings, so be it, that's where not following reality takes you. What are real issues with fairings? Cross sectional area… maybe moving the CM lower due to empty space on top?

Wow, then Apollo doesn't collect anything until Jack Schmitt arrives on the moon. All science gains need to be massively reduced. Say by a factor of 10. So a munar sample is 12 instead of 120. THEN, the science skill level is a straight multiple (Science skill +1 times base value) for the value of that collection. So pilot gets 12 ((0+1)*12), as science 1 guy gets 24, S5 gets 72.