tater

Yeah, this is a good place to start. I think instructionally, the non-intuitive nature of orbital maneuvering is also pretty cool (and so often done exactly wrong in popular culture ("point at it and burn straight for it" (though I was perfectly happy to see Sandra Bullock in yoga shorts, don't get me wrong)).

It could work perfectly well. Really, for engineering, time in space is useful to improve habitat designs, etc. The trick would be to scale it so that the science points come at a reasonable rate. The idea of putting time compression on is dumb, why bother with a career then? Just play sandbox. Also, Kerbals could have lifespans in the program (assuming at some point they matter). So you'd have your favorite guys retire or something. In addition, if there are some fixed, annual costs associated with a program, gratuitous time warp could be a bad thing… It's just a matter of campaign game design choices.

Yeah, that was sort of my point. It creates the possibility of a more open-ended system. Regarding "scope," it is certainly good fodder for a "Final Frontier" add-on (paid) to KSP, that adds asteroid mining, etc.

That or a "grabber" EVA unit that borrows the tech used for the larger grabber.

It was the first thing I did, actually, maybe I didn't hit him hard enough (when I circled around to put the rover near him to see if I could board, I braked insufficiently hard, picture above ).

Within the scope of a space program, at least from my interaction with guys who do this sort of thing for a living, the principal resource concerns are Oxygen, Hydrogen, and stuff like lunar regolith (either as shielding, or even concrete). The first two are both oxidizer/fuel and life support. Unless they add construction, the latter is not really required. From a game standpoint, you don't require anyone to mine at all, since they have everything needed on Kermin. It could be an option on the Mun, though.

Yep, edited the save and it worked out fine.

Worked! Woot, Aldzer is saved!

Thanks, giving it a try! Will report back.

Made a copy of the above in support.

So I managed to land a munar rover. Wow, hard to control... Long story short I went over a crater edge, and cartwheeled down. Rover mostly OK, but the driver was scraped off. Now he's standing there, can switch to him, but not do anything. The rover drives without him, and since I'm on a hill, I'm literally using poor Aldzer as a chock for the rover. I quit and restarted game. Have total control of the rover. If I right click poor Aldzer, I see his EVA Propellant level. That's as interactive as he gets. I have never done any saves other than what the game does. I exited, and came back. Same. When I switch to map view, the focus is not on his location, but the center of the Mun. The save part relative to him looks like this:

I have never done any saves other than what the game does. I exited, and came back. Same. When I switch to map view, it is not focus on his location, but the center of the Mun. The save part relative to him looks like this:

I quit and restarted game. Have total control of the rover. If I right click poor Aldzer, I see his EVA Propellant level. That's as interactive as he gets.

So I managed to land a munar rover. Wow, hard to control... Long story short I went over a crater edge, and cartwheeled down. Rover mostly OK, but the driver was scraped off. Now he's standing there, can switch to him, but not do anything. The rover drives without him, and since I'm on a hill, I'm literally using poor Aldzer as a chock for the rover. Any suggestions?

You have to remember a couple things. One, human (erm, kerbal) waste. A reason for hydroponics is to reuse organic waste, feeding the plants (which can be eaten, and turned into more waste), while simultaneously creating drinking water. The other is timing. It depends entirely on how long the mission is supposed to be. For shorter missions, it's not be that useful. For a continuously inhabited base, it's a big deal. I'd imagine greenhouses (they'd likely use lights, with PV panels or other for power) for bases, really large stations, and possibly long-duration flights with habitat modules (distant system would need nukes for power anyway, solar won't cut it).

Cold isn't really a problem for occupied habitats with a power source in space. The only heat loss is via direct radiation to space,a nd unless you have a structure designed for way more people than actual occupants, or run out of power in a module designed to be a great passive radiator (like the Apollo LEM), cold should not be a problem, usually the opposite. We'd likely assume that habitats are designed to radiate the correct amount for their maximum capacity, with some slop.

Regarding reentry. I absolutely expected to return just a capsule until I worked up to space-planes. Had I not read stuff in the forum about the lack of reentry being meaningful, I would still be doing so. All the part descriptions for kernels list tolerance to reentry, which tells new players it matters. I even piloted mine in stern-first. Northstar makes a good point as well. As I said in another post, increased realism can present new problems to solve, and new problems to solve is new gameplay.

I sent this station part up with rescue pods. There was an inverted quad with a nosecone on top, hence the separators in the bottom of the pods (because I like rockets to look at least sorta like a rocket). I will later attach it to my station hub, and refill the pod storage if needed. This are minimalistic pods, without enough fuel to really rescue on their own. Replacements will be brought from the station to the kerbals via a tug docked at the station. Unmodded, so far.

I agree, though I actually think that mining for H and O in particular (however they are extracted) is a legitimate thing for a space program to consider. Regolith for shielding, as well, actually. I was in an interdisciplinary class years ago about lunar bases, and local resources was discussed considerably (from drillers that melted soil into glass, to lunar concrete, and of course harvesting Oxygen and Hydrogen).

I understand that it's a WIP.

So true. I only started a couple weeks ago, and I had the same problem. I assumed I needed to open the hatch from inside the cockpit.

So I've been messing with "contracts." Some observations: 1. Some seem broken. I had a parachute test, and engine test with "normal staging" and all the marks were checked green, no success. A decline all those at this point. I had a test a poodle landed at Kerbin. Again, normal staging. Didn't work, though kerbin and Landed were both marked with green checks. 2. Too easy, all carrot. Decline anything you don't feel like. No time limits. You can bang out "science" without ever doing anything interesting. The whole "contract" mode needs to be more complex.

Too many options is a non-issue. The game is already modded, and people play countless ways. Nothing suggested in terms of "under the hood" realism requires that anyone radically change their gameplay---certainly not more than other projected updates might (contracts, etc, etc). Most could be easily toggled with a difficulty setting, too.

Once again, one side wants the stuff "under the hood" to be more realistic, the other side conflates that with insert_negative_attribute_here. What's under the hood is entirely unrelated to "fun." The game elements sit on top, and there are numerous ways to control difficulty if for some reason there is a problem. Assume for the sake of argument most or all of the suggested realism fixes in this thread (even the much debated secondary suggestion about a slight rescale of Kerbin). How to control apparent "difficulty" or even "fun" within such a framework? 1. Difficulty options. They have said they are working on this, and they could selectively disable things (deadly reentry on/off, life support, etc, etc). In addition to a la carte removal/enabling of certain features, a few simple choices of modes can have these preset such that Easy or Normal is not dissimilar from the current iteration (again, are the people against realism under the hood against ANY changes from 0.24.2? Do they desire a version invariant from the current game in perpetuity?). 2. Alternate launch facilities/timelines. You might have the option to start a space program a little farther on. This "advanced" program would could a munar base and munar VAB you could switch to. No pesky atmosphere, build even crazier stuff. 3. Improved career in general, with options that relate to difficulty/style of play.

Last night I realized that the clamp-o-tron-sr. has a preferred direction that was not that clear in the VAB. You'd think that randomly snapping them on would have made 50% point the right direction...