Shna_na

Referring to past posts and my own opinion, this is an overview in order of what I would most like to see: Kerbals should have stats that determine how they complete certain actions or affect other Kerbals. These effects should be brought on depending on the emotion of the Kerbal. The actions, however, should not be too disastrous, game-breaking, or similar to random events. They should be events that happen at certain thresholds and either reward or punish the player for making the decision that they have. For example: High courage (general): A Kerbal with high courage can calm down less courageous Kerbals around them depending on how high their courage stat is. Low courage (worried): A Kerbal with low courage may fail to complete a science experiment when they are particularly frightened. After some attempts or after calming down, the Kerbal can then eventually complete the task. High stupidity (happy): A particularly stupid Kerbal should fail to complete experiments sometimes when happy, as he's probably in his own little bubble. This problem should be rectified on the second or third attempt, however. High stupidity + Low courage (worried, EVA): A Kerbal with such stats as these should have a chance of dropping one or more experiments on EVA when scared or in ragdoll mode (after an impact, for example). Low stupidity (general): A somewhat bright Kerbal should have a small chance of slightly increasing the science yield of an experiment, with a higher chance of this when in EVA. High stupidity (general, EVA): A stupid Kerbal may sometimes fail to plant a flag, leaving it rolling down a hill or simply collapsing onto the ground. In extreme circumstances, the Kerbal could throw the flag when pulling it out of his backpack. High stupidity (general, EVA): Unintelligent Kerbals should sometimes fail to grab the ladder when they leave the capsule for EVA, simply dropping from the airlock. Low stupidity + High courage: A confident, intelligent Kerbal may decide to process an experiment to increase its yield when transmitting it. If you have more for that list, please do share. Experience: Kerbals should gain experience from completing activities such as transmitting data, completing experiments, surviving a mission, planting a flag, etc. This experience should then automatically adjust their stupidity or courage accordingly depending on the task completed. Accolades/Achievements: When a Kerbal does something worth recognising, it should be recognised. First toset foot on a place outside of Kerbin? Get recognised! First to achieve orbit? Recognition's on its way! And other things such as tallies (number of missions survived, number of celestial bodies landed on, total time on missions, number of explosions witnessed, science earned, etc.) and highlights (favorite celestial body depending on how many times they've been on it, furthest distance from KSC, most science collected in one mission, etc.) would be brilliant. Individuality: Kerbals are just blanks at the moment. They're all exactly the same - with the exception of Bill, Jeb, and Bob in their orange suits - and don't really give me a reason to keep them alive, considering the fact that they are infinite. Giving them small details such as varied skin colour, hair, eye colour, positioning and size of facial features, spacesuits, etc. would create a small emotional attachment to them. Coupled with the bigger things such as experience and achievements/accolades, this makes each Kerbal unique and more important. They will each have their own purpose. Nationality/City of origin: That's right, cities. Cities should be added to the game that each have a name. This could be done in the same way that the craters on the Mun were - randomly generated once, then implemented as a constant, unchanging, set thing. Nothing overly fancy, just some basic buildings and the likes. But alongside this, airports in major cities would be great. It gives planes a purpose, as I feel that they don't really have one at the moment. Economy: While it'd be a complicated thing to balance (cost per Xtonnes of fuel for each different type of fuel, cost of parts depending on complexity/advancement etc.), an economy for career mode would add a whole new challenge to the game. There could be a difficulty setting, where the lower it is the more money you start with and the less things cost. It could be used as a wage for each Kerbal (depending on their stats and experience), to buy a Kerbal, to earn through the up-and-coming contracts, train Kerbals, and a whole host of other things. While I don't particularly have much of an idea as to how it could be implemented, Squad have the know-how, experience, genius, and creativity to do this well as they have with past features. So there's my verdict. I'll probably edit this from time to time - adding stuff, tweaking stuff - but this is what I came up with over an hour. Hope you agree, please do expand on this or shed your light on the subject.

Where they hit

True. The user below me has not yet reached the end of the tech tree.

I agree, the grind is real and very grindy. Grinding kind of grinds my gears, as I'm sure it does for most people. ^This. This could be a function of one of the building modules I was talking about, and having the option to let the grinding be done by your well trained, well paid Kerbals while still being massively involved in positioning and decision-making is a brilliant idea.

"So, not that button... That butto-"

Guys: Stop arguing and discuss the original post. If you want to argue, do it somewhere else - preferably messaging each other. Anyway, I'm pro-colonisation but think the levels idea is a bit off. In fact, this idea in general could use some work. Here's my opinion: - Send a colonisation module (large, heavy part containing 4 Kerbals (fixed amount, no less) and some basic colony tools that will be stated later) to the body of your choice. - Land this module and select "colonise". - Send colonisation parts (under a new section of the VAB/SPH labelled 'colonisation') in storage bays (varying sizes - from tiny to large - and heights - again, from tiny to large, with radial options). In these bays, parts can be stored and transferred to a colony. - The part that have been transferred to a colony can be used to make buildings. Oh, those basic parts? They will be used to make a farm in an enclosed, controlled environment (glass-shielded bubble?). Things like water, waste disposal etc. are built into the colonisation module. - Rather than having set buildings, the player can chose from the selection of parts they brought what building to make. This is chosen by different modules that define a building - only one per building - that are large. Where's the customisation? A building needs more than just a module to work, and while I haven't figured out what other parts would be needed I'm sure the devs would be able to. I would suggest that some parts can improve speed or yield but only to a point. - Some buildings can create small craft such as rovers and planes, but nothing large. - Module can be used to carry out science experiments. This can be balanced however the devs wish, maybe with the ability to only do one every now and then, some that are ongoing (such as psychological studies) etc. You like?

"Gonna go walk around this entire celestial bo- aaand I'm back." I would then proceed to do this: "Hmmm... That place is higher up than where we landed. We'd save more fuel if we launched from there..." *picks up craft and places it in new position* "Much better!"

Allow me to just point say something to everyone. Don't worry if you can't return from a Mun landing. It took me some time before I could do it, a whole year as a matter of fact. And that's including mods, took a further half-year to do so with stock parts. Still think it's bad that you can't do it? OK, I had landed on Moho before I could return from the Mun. There you go, now if you can do that you can return from the mun. Really, it takes far less Delta V to go to the Mun and return than it does to go to Moho. On with the proof that I can do it: NOTE: Lost the screenshots when I updated the game. I'll do another mission (as I planned to soon, anyway) and post the images then.

While I prefer not to leave it in orbit, it is ineveitable. Debris wants what debris wants, and I say that if it wants to survive in orbit then we should let it. With one exception: if a piece of debris appears to be in a potentially dangerous position (eg: in a similar orbit to your space station or other permanent satellite) then it should be terminated in the most convenient way possible. With explosions. But that's only under exceptional circumstances.

Welcome! In this post you will find the Delta V requirements for achieving low-orbit above any celestial body in Kerbal Space Program. Low-orbit, in this context, is defined as being 10KM above the atmosphere/objects on that body. Note that this does not mean that they are 10KM above the highest point of each planet, though they are all in a safe, stable orbit. These are almost exact calculations that do not have much room for error at all. In order to account for human error, I would recommend that you add some Delta V as 'wiggle room', so to speak, in order to ensure that you don't get so close and then feel a crushing disappointment as you are 100m/s short of Delta V. To make these calculations would have been impossible without this map, Originally by Jellycubes on the Reddit forums. I would like to thank him for making this useful tool and recommend it to all of you, as it shows more information than is listed here. The calculations here are only for achieving low orbit, however the map shows how much Delta V is required to do land, intercept, or achieve low orbit. I would, again, like to emphasise that these calculations are taken from this data and put into a format that involves no calculation. NOTE: - All of the calculations in the following section are from Kerbin's surface to the destination. - All require the same amount of delta V to complete from the destination back to Kerbin. - All calculations do not include aerobraking. - When returning to Kerbin using aerobraking, take 3500m/s from the equation. - All calculations for moons include reaching the low-orbit of their parent planet. Raw Order From these results, we can conclude that the bodies can be put into order of least to highest Delta V requirements when not including aerobraking like so: However, this does not take aerobraking into account... Final Conclusion When taking aerobraking into account, the above order changes. Without involving any actual calculations, my prediction is that the following list is in the correct order of Delta V requirement when including aerobraking: As I mentioned, this is purely an educated prediction, not a calculated result. Would you like to see the Delta V requirements for landing on these celestial bodies? See it adapted into an image? Have the landing requirement calculated and put into an image? Sure thing, let me know in the replies if this would be useful to you. Big thanks to Jellycubes for creating that extremely useful map (linked above).