tater

Command q on a mac.

Regarding "automation," it's not automation, it's a kerbal pilot actually doing his job.

In a perfect world we'd have this, plus a randomized kerbol system, so that each career could be novel. Regarding scan quality, pointing, etc, its a built in difficulty. Take high res and have a better map, or don't, and wing the landing. Fun either way.

Waste is not critical, IMHO. Liquid waste can have water recovered with pretty high efficiency, and solid waste could either be dumped, or in the case of a greenhouse, used as fertilizer.

I see an orbital shipyard as requiring parts to be delivered by the player. An area where you dock a ship, and the component parts become available for use VAB style. Nothing is manufactured, it is merely assembled. The benefit being you can build something big/odd without staging, aerodynamics, etc.

Some life support mod. I actually think that a simplification is fine---like Snacks, but with death, not rep loss as the penalty. Real life support has consumables, and elements that can recycle. All that matters is the end mass of non-recovered stuff (and power) per day used. You can abstract by having a constant drain rate, and more LS units in more advanced habitats/pods, or you can have the drain rate based on the habitat/pod, and a more fixed number of LS units for a given hab/pod. No need to micromanage CO2 removal vs water vs whatever. LS units per man-day used.

Any use of the kerbals as AI would always be voluntary anyway. It provide an actual reason to care about them… a bad pilot might make your orbital station look like ISS in "Gravity."

It really isn't automation, technically, because they would all have pilots---Jeb, Bill, Joetry, etc.

I'd say that the orbital shipyard idea would be assembling prefabricated sections, basically the VAB in space. The deal would be that you could directly connect things instead of having to use clamp-o-trons. Inventory would require delivering the parts. Sort of a PITA unless there was a way to automate deliveries.

I made a rover with a couple snack boxes and a small fuel tank for good measure so I could swap fuel from various landers (vs habitat landers that no longer need fuel) and get at least 1 out of there (landing several in one area is rather more fuel intense for me). I forgot how much rovers stink. If my land rover behaved like one of these I'd have been dead a few years ago.

I guess I can do the grabber thing. I have no desire to hover, it's not something I'd expect any actual base to even consider (let's put a dangerous rocket above our house!). I'll make a rover, the grabber never occurred to me. They should have something like connected living spaces that says if is is landed, and within XXX meters, it is connected. Least I know what I'm doing tonight, editing the saves is a PITA, but up until now it seemed the most realistic option

The problem with "science" is that it's not actually interesting to do, and there is grossly too much of it (meaning too many points awarded). In my current 0.25 career, I have hard with 30% rewards, FAR/DRE/snacks/etc, and I have the entire tree unlocked at Y1, day ~130. The trouble of course is that many of the things you unlock are technologies that are literally 30-40 years old (for us). There needs to be a rebalance of science/funds/etc, IMO. Some of that can be directed such that to unlock better habitat stuff (or maybe life support improvements, should they add that), you need to have long-duration flights (stations, in other words). That creates a use right there.

You can do that now. It needs constant resupply, though*. You can also do that now. You get contracts for science from orbit pretty much constantly. Any crew report fulfills this requirement. Good idea, but it would need to be supplied*. I'd differentiate this idea from simply docking components together. Allow them to be welded/bolted together in a way that makes them far fewer "parts" from a loading/physics standpoint. Assuming some sort of resources are delivered*, yeah. * We need to have our astronauts actually capable of autonomy. So that we can assign kerbals to fly scheduled missions that we don't have to. Those missions would be the supply delivery runs.

They do real splashdown tests at 7-8 m/s. I'd think the limit is more physiological than the hardware.

Any ideas for what to do with transfer for bases? Right now I've been landing close by, then editing my persistent save to move XX snacks from the resupply lander to my base. It's something kerbals would do on their own, ideally. I know I can get KAS I suppose, I was trying to keep the mod count low.

Yeah, well we may be stuck with the broken paradigm of "science" unlocking tech (which I think is actually backwards). I think within KSP scope, large colonization is not something to pursue. More like early, permanent habitation. Really interesting space constructions (O'Neil type stuff) are not really doable realistically in KSP, as the mechanism for assembly in orbit is not designed for construction, just docking (aside from part count issues). That would really require kerbal autonomy. Design something, have the budget/whatever to do it, design launch vehicles, etc, and they just do scheduled launches and make it happen in situ. That's another game, though, IMO.

Green. Their gender is green.

What does the lander can description say again? I barely notice DRE. The first time I tried it (and FAR) I tried a few reentry tests, and aside from reentries that barely go through the atmosphere (in tests) I notice it about as much as I notice reentry in stock (not at all). I don't try to reenter landers, though (except extra-kermin missions).

I should add (I mentioned it above a ways), that "end game" right now is basically when the tech tree is unlocked. Funds are not a problem in KSP. At all. I'm playing hard with 30% instead of 60% rewards, AND I have DRE/FAR/Snacks. I have well over a million in the bank, the entire tree unlocked, and my career is now day ~130-something (I'm sparingly using time compression as I need to make sure I either return, or resupply guys in orbit, or on/around Mun/Minmus). There is a Duna launch window in around 100 days, and I'm getting ready for that (I sent a higher dv ship with some supplies and no guys ahead, and will send a few more with empty hitchhikers as the window gets closer). So while I have "exploration" to do just because, from a game design standpoint, my game is over, I've met the only "victory conditions" the game has (aside from just the fun of playing what is basically now sandbox). That's really the fundamental question: is unlocking "sandbox" what they have in mind for the point of end-game? I tend to think that it's a weak way to go as a game choice. I'd like to play with limitations that matter, just to make it interesting. A new thing to unlock would just be a new thing to unlock, moving the "end game" away by a couple minutes of play. I'm OK with sandbox, BTW, I'm just saying that you have a sense of completion, irrational or not, when the tree is done. I'm sure there is psychology around the way people complete game tasks we could look up. I sort of see a colonization mode as a kind of unlocked, novel gameplay that might add new challenges. FTL removes challenges… so there you are having unlocked the tech tree after a space program that has lasted maybe a couple game-years (only due to travel times to the outer system would it even be that long, you could easily do it in much less time, particularly in stock game difficulty settings where it would be hard no to unlock it in a couple months, game time). President: "We've created a program to put someone in a tin can and throw them in the air. The first try is tomorrow!" 2 days later: "We chose to go to the Mun, not because it is easy… (Werner Kerman whispers in the President's ear) OK, it's sort of easy, but we'll try to make it hard by sending really stupid astronauts!" (applause). 2 months later: "We chose to go to another solar system because warp drive!"

Yeah, I had read that, but it's not consistent. In my new install, then same mods added in one at a time, then my save game… the stretch is not there any more. Really weird. It must have been coincidence that the effect only showed up after I installed ATM.

Cool idea. This planning the destination idea (particularly tied to a target) would be useful for kerbals as pilots (something I'd like to see).

Orion is only more plausible because it's slightly less complicated (depending on the iteration). They are all handwavium at the moment though. It's certainly more feasible than FTL drives as you could actually build at least part of one to test if it were not for the test ban on nukes (which is why it never went past the drawing board). Rover/Nerva should have been flown ages ago as well, but some nuts are afraid of RTGs, even, so good luck with that. Mars doesn't require fusion though. Nukes are enough. As for KSP, Hitchhikers are not colonies. I'm thinking some in situ construction is more like it, but that's beyond the scope of KSP. System wide is exactly what their "tycoon" model is, however. The game already has a (not well done) economy anyway. Do space flights, get funds. They've already confirmed extra-kermin resources (fuel, though the most likely fuel/oxidizer is also life support) which is an obvious lead-on to settlements that require less constant resupply. Perhaps pork jet's inflatable habs will end up a thing. That's really the scope of the current game at best, sort of space-program directed continuous habitation. Anything is worth considering if plausible, I'm not that fussy… but FTL is not plausible right now.

You don't need rungs or ladder at all. You can use EVA pack to get to the hatch.

I made a clean copy and added all the mods in (one at a time, testing as I went)… and no problems. Then I added my save back in… and it looks fine. I thought it might be a persistent save issue, so I copied THAT back in, and no problem (and it showed with scenarios, too, so I'm at a loss). Perhaps a crash might have corrupted something else.

FTL would be a rather huge jump, even within Kerbol system given nothing past 1960 tech along those lines in game (Nerva). Fusion, either as reactors are not right around the corner (I know people working on it at Sandia, but I'm not holding my breath). Orion is a far more plausible option, and even that is at the very least fraught with some danger (if you want to launch from planet side). I don;t see end-game as a "thing" you unlock, and more as something to do after you unlock everything. Hence colonies. It's at least something to do. Really it would be better with some kerbal autonomy.