tater

It was minmus. The craft was stock parts, but I have DRE/FAR/PF, and the stock bugs fixes, etc installed. Have to see if I still have logs, but I can replicate it. I added hyperedit to try and put a replacement nearby to rendezvous, and I could put just the lander on the pad, pop it in orbit with HE, and it would instantly explode. I will try and replicate it with a stock copy of 0.90 and let you know. The one that stuck on the pad, however, was not stock as it had a PF fairing.

In the VAB click the little icon at the top, near the left that looks like a kerbal (another looks like a hook), then remove the crew.

I've used FAR for a while, and I honestly didn't really notice it was installed since I made rockets that looked like rockets I guess.

The 2d stick was a lander docked to a station. Once free it explodes.

I'm using that fix, and I had that last night. Mainsail and SRBs on rocket that lifted a station section earlier, now lifting something smaller stuck to the pad, all rockets burning. Got it aloft with clamps... Put it around minmus, and the lander (and a fuel tank for minmus station)… dock, and decide to take lander down, now the LANDER is stuck to the station, uncouple… nothing. Accelerate time, and they separate, go to normal time, and the lander explodes, then anything debris brushes on station also explodes. Weird. Pad facility totally upgraded, BTW.

I realize the differences between real fuel cells and what we have in KSP. I was saying that the batteries should be more of a thing in any rebalance. Even with low power usage, they should allow longer flights with just batteries (filling in as they do for anything short of solar and RTGs). I like the idea of power for LS. I end up using Snacks (I terminate any flights that would run out) because I like the notion of LS treated as the sum total, though there is another one (interstellar?) that also uses a 1 unit fill-in for LS, along with power I was looking at. I have no plans to make a spaceplane, they seem overly optimistic, so it doesn't really matter to me one way or another as I could delete the hanger and not notice it was missing.

I have a few autographs from astronauts, and I spent time with a few others and never bothered to get autographs (seemed an uncool thing to do at the time). Regarding shuttle accidents, my wife and I were awake in bed the morning Columbia failed on reentry. I thought a bird had hit the picture window in the living room. Expected to see a bird print on the window and staggering large bird (it was LOUD), and went to the patio in front… nothing, except I kept hearing an odd rumbling for a bit. Not long after that we heard on the news that there had been a problem. The break up started near New Mexico, and they in fact ended up doing some searching near our house (we're in the foothills). A dad of one of the astronauts (Clark?) was living in ABQ, and was actually out to watch it fly over during reentry

I want to nerf the turbojet, and I have never built a spaceplane---because they feel like "magic" in KSP, and I'm not fond of magic (unless it's nethack, then I play a wizard, often). I'm not sure if I count as a vet, though. The battery issue is significant, as well. You can lose a probe in Kerbin shadow forever from drained batteries and lack of solar in a few hours… amazing that Apollos made it over 12.5 days without panels

I believe this is correct, they put a Progress on the back of Zvezda, and that points along the long-axis of ISS (which nominally points in the direction of the velocity vector as I understand it)

It's a bug addressed in this small fix mod: [KSP v0.90] Stock Bug Fix Modules (Release v0.1.7c - 4 Jan 15)

Paul drew a few (sketches, anyway) with feathers in the 90s as I recall, but not many. It will be interesting to see pop culture come up to speed on current restorations.

I'd suggest starting out with the wiki pages on ISS. I think the control computers are in Zvezda (the Service Module), and they prefer to use a Progress for lifting the orbit (they have to do this periodically because of atmospheric drag---in Kerbal universe, it's like they are orbiting at 69,999 m, there is a little drag).

I usually think of grinding as have to repetitively do low-value stuff. I am waiting in that career to go to Duna, but the launch window is after day 200. In the meantime, I built some rockets (learning new, 0.90 stuff in the VAB, etc), sand without even trying unlocked everything. I've barely explored the Mun, actually. I tried out a few of the new FP contracts on the Mun (since they were new), I built a couple stations, put up a few satellites. Vanilla, early game stuff I would assume. I didn't consider it a grind, much of it was novel to me (I had not been using FP before). It was a joke, really. 1950-something to 2015 compressed into 70 days?

Telescopic images of Mars were abysmal. Basically, until flybys we had no idea what Mars actually looked like geographically.

I actually don't see the "grind" for the same reasons you say there is one. I started a vanilla 0.90 career to test it, and to be able to offer comments to the devs on the unmoved game. By day 70-something, I had unlocked everything in the tree. I upgraded all the buildings I cared about all the way (VAB/Tracking/Research/Admin/Astronaut Complex), and I think I have 3-4 million in the bank. I have stations around Kerbin and the Mun (and one solar orbit contract I took). I have probes headed out farther, but didn't warp time for them to arrive. So unlocked everything barely leaving Kerbin SOI. The problem is that to make "science" the goal, the reward is tech. The trouble is that most KSP "science" is planetary science that is realistically 100% unrelated to spaceflight science. Resources are the best driver to make "science" useful, and to separate the tech tree from some of the science. I would change a few things. 1. Add new camera parts, spectrometers, etc. Basically something like scansat, or perhaps actually scansat (I have not played with it yet, but it looks cool). 2. Add resources. Assuming the goal is simple resources, we are looking for Hydrogen, Oxygen, and if they added built in-situ facilities, soil (shielding/construction material). Science instruments would be actually used like scansat to find places where resources can be extracted. The game would at the very least randomize these locations, so you'd HAVE to survey, then land and take soil samples, etc, etc. 3. Add resource extraction. 4. Science is divided into planetary, spaceflight, and medical. 5. Tech tree would become more complex. Nodes rearranged to make sense, then unlocking would have different requirements per node. Some might require 50 Medical science points, 200 spaceflight points, and 50 planetary science points to unlock "X tech", then that must be tested to become the real part (say this example is a lander can---medical for life support design issues, spaceflight for the bulk of it, and planetary because as a lander they need to consider the planetary environments it might be used in).

Oh, wow, thx!

True enough, lol. The whole science/tech interaction is… bizarre.

I'd still like the ability to kill them if I run out as an enforcement mechanism. As it is, if I run out I terminate their craft (happily I've mostly avoided this).

"Science" has little to do with the tech tree if you actually think about it, most "science" done is geology, really. The rest is actually rocketry, etc, and the companies involved do know about that.

The devs don't like random failure, apparently. I think that the tech tree should be redone, and when you "unlock" tech, it is "X-tech." Experimental tech can fail, and it cannot become "flight rated" until run through tests that are less silly than current part test contracts. Unlock a new engine, then have to use it for XXX seconds, for example, a percentage of with have to be different places (orbit, Mun orbit, whatever).

Sounds like a launch window planner.

The tech tree cart is before the horse. You should decide to unlock certain tech, THEN use it/test it on missions that might then get you science. Apollo was designed to get to the moon, they did not get to the moon to develop apollo via the study of lunar geology. Such a paradigm would have the player select a strategy for their program (unlike the current strategies, these would be goals for their space program), which would unlock various tech. They would then test it in cool ways, which would be what would provide the points to open further tech. There might be a couple possible at a time. Strategies might be like: 1. Orbital presence (stations and satellites in Kerbin orbit) 2. Mun or Bust! (think Apollo) 3. Planetary probes (JPL) 4. Eggs out of the one basket (Duna exploration for possible colonization) 5. Fly to orbit (X-15 to spaceplanes as the focus) 6. etc. Each would set up a tree with certain items already unlocked, but the path started. Other lateral tech still possible, but the path of least resistance would be the "strategy" path---which the player could change at some cost. Contracts and rewards would be tweaked based on the strategy. Not thought out, this is stream of consciousness, but it could work.

The best "technology" would be to not have Congress decide what NASA has to buy. We'd not have multi-billion dollar stuff like Orion (less capable than Dragon 2), and we'd not have congress quashing orbital refueling every time it pokes its head up.

You could combine your original post, 5thhorseman, with Claw's (good) point, and have them be in orbit, but owned by another entity. Then new missions could be generated around that, for example resupply missions, or even taking up kerbals. Instead of endless build a station, then the same entity can ask for expansions to their existing station. Regarding "grindy" minimalistic stations, the requirements could always include specific parts (habitat, science lab, etc) as many already seem to have.

I've been playing vanilla 0.90 career since the update (though I finally got bored and put FAR/DRE/etc back in) and thought I'd post some observations. Some pertain to the career as it existed pre-0.90, others are obviously directed at Fine Print as implemented in 0.90, and a few perhaps at the new facility upgrades, etc. Overall, little has changed in the "big picture" sense. You can still start from nothing, and have bases on other worlds (Mun/Minmus) in a few months of game time. John F Kerman: "We choose to go to the Mun in this decade (aid whispers in ear). "Sorry, this month…" (aid whispers again)... "by the end of the WEEK, not because it is easy---OK, OK, because it is easy!" The only thing that pushes time forward in KSP is time compression for missions to farther bodies. Stick around Kerbin SOI, and it's impossible not to unlock/upgrade everything before the first Duna launch window happens. I got a friend to buy the game, and I will ask how he's doing (I know he crashed on the Mun the other evening after a few nights of play, but Jeb survived so he was planning a rescue). Science: Sadly, unchanged. Cart largely before horse with this and tech tree, IMO. Tech Tree: Again, sadly, unchanged. I'd like to see more variable paths through the tree, and have them make more sense. Contracts: A few general observations before specifics. 1. There are too many of them, and many are just absurd. 2. Dismissing a contract should not replace it with a new one. Contracts should expire in a semi-random date range between a few hours, and a few months (they are sort of like this now). But no new contract should be forthcoming until the existing ones expire, if you take them or not. Rescue missions would expire very quickly, and would require near immediate completion. Parts testing: 1. Many (most?) already in game need to be done away with. Jet engine on a world with no oxygen to burn? Deleted. Spashed down engine tests? Deleted. Booster rocket tested at 12,000m? Deleted. You get the idea. Few would remain, frankly, almost all are just dumb. Any that remain should have intelligent requirements. 2. Some new contracts need to be added, however. "Test the Mk1-2 pod reentering from an apoapsis of 12 million meters," for example. Or "Launch 2 clamp-o-trons, and successfully perform a docking in orbit around Kerbin." Test landing legs on minmus, or whatever. Realistic flight tests that drive actual missions, not contraptions to test something in an odd way. 3. Parts testing contracts should only rarely happen more than once, if they ever do at all. You static tested the 909 engine at KSC? Great, it's 1 in 1000 that you'll ever see that mission again in this career (or simply zero if that is easier). 4. Perhaps part testing can be an additional requirement to open tech tree nodes? i.e.: science points PLUS a few targeted part testing contracts. 5. If a part really needs another part, they should come together to test. No giant engine tests without matching fuel tanks, no ion engines without xenon tanks, etc. Make it possible to use parts testing for REAL missions, not just absurd contraptions. Exploration: 1. These can be increased… add some general explore options for solar orbit, flybys, etc. Plant flag: 1. Meh. These can mostly go away and be replaced with specific part testing contracts. If a device mfg wants you to "plant a flag," what they want is their part on the Mun. Regardless, they should be geome specific (I'm not gonna use "biome" for places sans "bio" any more). Stepping out a few times a month to plant a flag next to your lander to gain funds should not be a thing. Visual Observation/Surface collection/EVA report/Temp/Seismic/Atmospheric Observation (new with 0.90). Good idea, needs a lot of work.: 1. Visual observation needs some new parts. Cameras at a few levels. Low res (wide field), medium res, and high res. Can be added to probes, or assumed for some command/habitat pods, or can be new science parts you have to add to craft (in which case the low res camera should be available right away). Mk1 and early probe core have low res. Mk1-2, and science lab have all 3, other might have medium. Perhaps a scientist gets 1 camera better than the pod has (in which case they all top off at medium, and the scientist is required for high res images that are useful). Other instruments possible as well. 2. Assuming #1 above, the altitude requirements for visual observations would then be replaced with a limit based on resolution needed. With lower res you might need to be at <6000m, but that might double for medium, and double again for a high res camera. This would allow completion at various levels of play. So instead of observing Nerd's Gamma from under 7500m, the requirement would be to take high resolution imagery of Nerd's Gamma (which might then be defined as Below 30,000m for a high-res camera, 15,000m for a medium res, and below 7500m for the low res. 3. EVA reports. These are OK, but it's really hard to find the sites once landed (mark on navball is not a thing for EVA). Perhaps these could be related to one another, as they come in groups. Do the camera pass, which then gives a more precise target marker on the surface for EVA/collection (maybe doing the camera pass successfully could allow the map views to be zoomed in more so you know which way to walk?). So VO pass unlocks positions for sample/eva missions. 4. Sample collection. Same as 3, should be linked as above to the orbital observations. 5. Kerbin versions should all require orbital stuff, not surface collection. I need to build a craft to fly to the north pole, yet I hit "recover" and we can simply drive a truck there to retrieve my spacecraft? Why did I risk a spacecraft instead of just driving? I'd dump all those, I never do them, exploring Kerbin seems absurd to me when I can recover spacecraft instantly from anywhere. Satellite contracts: 1. These mostly make sense, it's something space programs do. Around Kerbin, that is. 2. Dump the ones for other worlds or rewrite them as space probes (camera, perhaps other instruments?) until the player has already unlocked the "explore" contract for that world (don't need a comsat around Duna if no one is there). Stations/bases: 1. They are OK, but some make no sense, and I've had trouble building them from sections and having the game accept them (contrary to the unlocking exploit posted here, I cannot get them accepted, lol). It's why I have not taken Mun base contracts as I don't want to work for a Hab for 18, get it all hooked together, then find that it won't accept it because the first part I landed didn't have an antenna, because the science lab part already did, and I didn't want one on each or something. 2. Getting them for other worlds when I have not yet explored them seems dumb. There should be a reason to explore or send a probe first. Science from orbit: 1. It's fine, even with the ability to switch to a station, and do it over and over, but the contracts need to be spaced out in time, right now you could probably do dozens of these before the spacecraft completes one orbit if you were willing to dismiss contract after contract. Rescue: 1. I have a long post on this. They need to have ships, crashed landers, etc. Progression: Generally, they need to make more sense as the game progresses, and they need to be spread out so that you don't have a Mun colony a month after the space center opens. Parts testing contracts with useful goals can facilitate early players doing stuff they lack the unlocked parts for. Larger engines need to come with appropriate fuel tanks, for example.