Drunaii

It would be nice to be able to use any probe shape you wanted, but my thinking was that even once the more advanced cores were unlocked, you might still choose to use a less advanced model to save on cost (an atmospheric probe deployed to Eve by a larger ship, for example, would only need staging control and transmission capability). Perhaps the player could choose which computer to load into the probe when it's placed? Or maybe, once tweakables are implemented, the cores could become storage units. You could choose one, then put in the various control systems, processing units and maybe data storage units. Each one would add a bit of mass and take up a bit of space, but a lot of power and $.

So we have seven different probe cores available right now, and the only difference between them is their size and shape. This is useful (I definitely like the large diameter core), but the variety seems a bit pointless right now. As soon as you unlock the first probe, you've got the full functionality of Kerbal programming, then you spend another thousand science points on fitting that computer into different boxes. So, what I propose is that the different probes have different levels of functionality. The Stayputnik, for example, would be the simplest, capable only of activating stages. You could launch it using a fin-stabilized rocket, but you would be limited to suborbital (or escape, I suppose). You could still recover it for science, but it couldn't perform experiments, steer the ship, use rcs, sas, or anything else. In return, it would be extremely light, and use less power. The HECS core would be next, allowing basic maneuvering (but maybe only near Kerbin). They probes would become progressively more advanced, allowing SAS, RCS, maneuver node use, rover wheel control, and so on. The price for this would be increasing cost (science and money) and power requirements. Obviously, all of these capabilities should be available in all three sizes, I'm not suggesting that capable computers have to be big. The manned pods would not be restricted in this way. Another capability would be in 'processing power'. Basically, before any data can be transmitted, it is first processed by the onboard computers. If those computers are weak, the data volume is increased, and the maximum science value obtainable through transmission is reduced. This part would also apply to the manned pods. The one-man pod wouldn't have much computer capacity, the three-man would be better, the crew tank would be even better, but none would be as good as the best probe. This would give some incentive to bring a probe along as a processor, though it still wouldn't be as good as sample return.

I like the realism of that approach, but ultimately they boil down to the same thing, you have modules that store some resource that the kerbals consume at some rate. In Ioncross, there are multiple resources, but if they are combined into one 'crew support module', then there's little difference. Fundamentally, the only difference is whether the kerbalnauts die when the life support runs out. I think they shouldn't, since I like the idea of rescue missions for frozen kerbsicles, and hibernation would necessary for long journeys anyway. Honestly, I'd be fine with having the system you described implemented in stock, but there are usually cries of 'Too complicated!' when things like that are suggested, so I wanted to offer a simpler solution.

I disagree, it adds an element of challenge to manned missions. With the crew reports coming in 0.22, there's extra incentive to bring crew members along to do science, but currently there is no penalty. Sure, the command pods are a bit heavy, but they don't require any resources and they don't go dormant like probe parts. It would be nice to have a real challenge associated with bringing kerbals along on a mission, especially now that there are real benefits.

Ok, discussion might have been a better label, but it can't be changed now. I think this idea really could work, and, more importantly, wouldn't be too hard to implement, since it's basically electricity, just with more emphasis on storage than generation. And, for that matter, generation wouldn't be too hard to do, just have a hydroponics part (maybe ~hitchhiker size to feed one kerbalnaut). All it would need would be electricity (and a lot of it), but it could keep your watchful pilot happy and fed for journey, or sustain a base or station or something. Another plus would be a part other than the ion thruster that can actually use the capacity of one of those large solar arrays.

I was thinking of something more solid fuel-flavored, but they should probably have a wide assortment, can't have them getting bored.

The biggest problem with doing life support is how annoying it would be to manage, especially for interplanetary missions. Sure, it would realistic to have to bring along a hundred tons of food and water, but not very fun. On the other hand, some kind of life support would be nice to have, so we need a compromise. Let's say that, for simplicity's sake, there's only one life-support resource, let's call them snacks. Each kerbalnaut would use some amount of snacks per minute, and each command pod would come stocked with a reasonably large amount (a few days' worth, say). Once they run out, the kerbalnauts' "snack meters" would start to drop (from 100%), and they would reach zero after an hour or so. The kerbals wouldn't die, they would just be in hibernation. Once another source of snacks was obtained, their meters would start to rise until they hit 100% again. The kerbals couldn't do anything unless their snack meter was at 100, so no EVA, no flying from the command pod, nothing. I think that the resource itself should be massless, just to simplify things (you don't want to have to account for consumables loss when planning maneuvers far in advance), but the tanks should be decently heavy. We can just say that the Kerbalnauts hate littering in space, so they store all of their trash in the tanks. So, let's say you had an interplanetary mission to Duna. You would launch normally, then once your craft was on course, you could cut off the snack supply like any other resource, and the brave kerbalnauts would go to sleep. You would need a probe onboard to stay in control, so you can wake them up for their exploration time. Either that, or you could have all but one of the crew asleep in the hitchhiker pods, and that one lonely pilot in the command pod would eat snacks the whole way there.

This is a nice flowchart, I like the close integration of the technology side with the industry side. It would be nice if the tech development didn\'t end with producing a part, though. Maybe the first few parts you build have a high failure rate (boosters explode, struts break, etc), but you could continue to do research into that part type (or just use it a lot), and that failure rate would decrease. Then you could take a risk with some new fancy aerospike that might explode, or go with the tried and true SRB. Just a thought.