tater

The base problem with scientists is that the science aspect of the game is so bad to begin with. Mission planners can tell any astronaut to pick up rocks on the Mun, for example, and the results will be the same. Where it differs is in the choice of rocks to pick. Regular astronauts can also run most experiments on orbit, but some might have a better chance of success with the actual scientist doing the work. It's also hurt in game by the fact that science is so easy to come by that any limits don't really matter. I think I prefer the idea that pilot, engineering, and science are not the sole role, but attributes like characters in a role playing game. Skill=0 acts like a current pilot with no level yet, add a new level below for the equivalent of a current Engineer acting as pilot (I'll use a - for this), which is "no skill." P0 can use SAS, P- cannot. 2/3 of new astronauts would then nominally be pilots. Jeb might start as Pilot 1, Engineer -, Scientist 0. Bill would be P0, E1, S-. Bob P0, E-, S1. New recruits get 2 zeros and a -. (or even 1 skill point worth divided by three where two 0s equal 1 skill, so you might randomly get a P-,E-,S1, or a P1, E-, S-) So Zebulon Kerman might start at P0, E0, S-. When they gain skill, it will be to one attribute. As soon as one attribute dominates, have the chance for additional skill much more likely in that attribute. So at his first skill upgrade, if Zeb gains P1, his next skill upgrades, instead of being an equal chance of P/E/S, might be 2/3 to gain in P, and 1/6 in each of E and S. Then the game should perhaps drop the science points awarded across the board, with increments up for S skill.

I've been saying this since difficulty settings came in. It is not difficulty, just a "grind" slider. Difficulty would require changes in gameplay difficulty.

The science stuff is easy to rationalize. It's not that they increase the amount transmitted, it's that they gather better data in the first place. 10 guys can each collect 10kg of rocks, but if ONE is a geologist, his 10kg might be more valuable than the 90kg from all the others combined.

I just PMed you the log and craft file. Sorry, fairing was on. My career might be corrupted, I think. I tried building it in a clean stock build, and it worked. I will move the craft file and see if that sticks in stock... - - - Updated - - - The stuff I sent you was loaded up in the modded install, but in sandbox, not my career… so it is the mod constellation (DRE/FAR/KJR/PF/SBFM) not my save game.

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.