Jonfliesgoats

I like this idea, and I think it would be pretty intuitive and user friendly. Either more tweakabkes could be added or modular SRBs could be employed as suggested by other folks here. Each SRB nozzle module could be ground adjustable via existing controls in the VAB. In flight gimballing of the nozzle should also be available with certain advancements. The nozzle module would determine basic SRB thrust as a constant. Each SRB fuel module could have a tweakabkes sliders regarding fuel consumption and thrust limiting coefficient applied to nozzle module thrust constant. Basically, we should have as much control over our SRBs as we have with our sugar rockets in the shed.

Imagine a Furbee (Furby? sic) that looks like Jeb or Valentina. It would be adorable, make Kerbish noises and slowly learn English to say things like "Fly!" or "I love rockets!". Just like Furbees get frustrated, the KSP Jeb Furbees would be frustrated unless they are subject so so much acceleration, jiggling and impact from time to time. I'd buy, like, ten. Also, kids would love plush Jeb Furbies.

I don't have a problem with a game for adult nerds at all. I am one and I play the game. I think it has the potential to be really good for teaching things to kids, however. I have focused on math, but at a much more basic and important level, the game gets kids to learn and apply basic troubleshooting techniques. Other games, like Minecraft, offer this to kids as well. It's possible that KSP and Squad are right targeting the adult nerd demographic. Without sounding too much like a cult member, the long term future of humanity depends on exploring the cosmos and getting to a point where our species is not married to the fate of our home planet. From before the eighteen hundreds and through the twentieth century science fiction involved a lot of space adventures. Those children's stories inspired the young, dynamic nerds that got us flying faster, farther, more accurately, etc. It would be a shame if KSP only appeals to space nerds who already interested in the stars. I think it has the potential to inspire the kid who will revolutionize propulsion, etc.

You can play the game with as much math as you like, really. For example, launching asymmetric payloads requires a little more torque or less acceleration. Less acceleration means a greater fraction of lifter DV is lost to gravity, etc.. Trial and error is part of the fun of KSP, but simply adjusting til your rocket stops exploding gets old, but that's me. So I spend most of my time in the VAB fiddling with my calculator. That's part of the fun for me. This is also why I should not be in charge of figuring out how to make this game appeal to kids.

I agree with diminished returns of science in situ. What about adding science to the surface scanning module? Also, since we can already excavate in space what about adding science for excavating under different biomes?

Fair enough. The Kerbals are little green space men with giant heads. Also, blowing stuff up tends to entertain kids.

Another advantage of conical cargo bays: aerodynamics. Our Mk1 capsule aerodynamically holds a retrograde attitude during reentry. No need to drain the batteries with reaction wheels all through the landing. When we want to land something unmanned through an atmosphere, we don't have the ability to put our cargo into a cone. So now we have to constantly run reaction wheels and carry much more electric charge through the entry which means more mass in batteries. For small payloads, the bulk and mass of batteries becomes significant.

KSP is a great game for adult nerds. Many of us have background in aviation, engineering and even some of are test pilots, flight test engineers, etc.. Like many of us, I let out a silent "squee!" when I start doing math. Figuring out whether you have enough torque in your reaction wheels to hold an asymmetric craft on a vector at various levels of acceleration is the type of thing that makes me gush physics and tell long, rambling, pointless stories about how cool I think I am to my infant daughter. But all of this stuff appeals to adult nerds. As one myself, the idea of space-cows and the like makes me cringe. But as an adult nerd I have recognize that we are bad at breeding more science nerds (we make pop-culture-reference geeks en masse). With alien life (I suggest on Laythe) that players can interact with, kids have an excuse and reward to get to another celestial body. Just like giving a pill to a dog wrapped in a sausage, the space alien stuff is the sausage that we use to get the engineering and physics pill into our kids. Perhaps even a part, like a death-laser that blasts things can be unlocked for the kiddies? As is we have flying saucer wreckage and various Arthur C Clarke reference. I don't want to work living, breathing creatures onto Laythe, but perhaps relics that offer rewards or something? Is it so bad to have alien artifacts and cartoon things on Laythe if it gets ten year olds doing math and thinking about construction? I am starting to change my opinion on the matter.

On Xbox I thought I'd be only mildly pleased with the game in comparison to my PC experience. Like many I relied on Kerbal Engineer. Instead I find it easy enough to calculate my own delta v and even use my graphing calculator app to plot quick reference charts for remaining delta v in flight, burn time required, etc.. That, for me, is part of the fun of the game now. Also, independent of mods I use alexmoon launch window planner for interplanetary travel. One thing I enjoy now that I am weaned off of Mechjeb is common sense. Before I would fly missions almost to the very limit number of what was possible with the math that I ran. Now I find that I build myself in about a fifteen percent fudge factor for orbital maneuvering/transfers. I build in a large error margin for Gravity-turns during non atmospheric descents so I can correct to find terrain, etc.. These are all common sense things that I missed. With MJ I would never interrupt warp mid flight to see if I need to make mid-course corrections. Now I do.

I like rocket SSTOs! Thatnhas been a cool prospect ever since the DC-X days in the 90s. Thanks for the thoughtful responses, all. Part of my problem is lack of creativity with stock fairings, I guess. I am trying to engineer a module that can deploy and recover rovers from 1.25 meter parts. So far the best option I have to get my wee rovers into a 2.5 meter service bay, land it, raise the great to set the service bay on the ground the drive in and out with the rovers. That has only given my fleeting glimpses of success so far. Something that lands and unfolds allowing rovers to roll off and on is what I want.

Love it! Also, way to go searching before posting. I just spout off whatever crosses my mind before doing any research at all.

OMG! I love this idea so much! I mean these Kerbals can figure out how to contain nuclear fission, train pilots and spend vast treasures trying to divine the mysteries of the cosmos. Still they can't figure out how to hire a librarian to hang around the R and D building with a ham radio listening to chatter coming in from distant laboratories? Good science requires good records. Right now the mobile labs have no lab notes.

Since the craft files in KSP don't support hinged parts, can we get more variety in containers? Service bays and cargo bays are fantastic, but it would be nice to have stackable 1.25 and 2.5 meter cargo bays. Unfolding ramps would be cool too. Also, fairings right now only work on the nose or tail or other end of a structure. Can we use the something similar to fairings to engineer deployable aerodynamic blisters. I am sure there are mods, but that doesn't do much for the Xbox community.

I like real life projects inspired and rewarded by KSP.

Brilliant idea!

Kerbals have take your children to work day but no children can be observed. Does this mean that Kerbal children are indistinguishable from adults? It would explain the hilarious engineering mishaps and misspellings. Hidden Kerbal children: owing to the difficulty in finding cave systems and large excavations on Kerbin, the children of Kerbals must be hidden somewhere on Kerbin's surface or under the sea. Other frog-people hypotheses would lend some credence to the sea-children notion.

I generally like the idea of more customization regarding launch, research and other infrastructure.

Since there is no wind or turbulence to speak of in game, could we get a SAS mode that holds a constant AOA? I imagine this would be easy since alpha will always be the difference between the longitudinal axis of the craft. You could set a craft delivering a heavy payload to hold an efficient AOA without constantly compensating for the curvature of Kerbin. This would also be handy for space plane reentry.

That lack of purpose is something that plagues the political relevance of NASA IRL. It is really important that common citizens cast their eyes skyward and lust for conquest. NASA for its part engages in some pretty vigorous PR. IRL the prospects of worldwide high speed internet, GPS, instant access to 1m satellite imagery and other commercial services keep us interested in LEO. Fear, legitimate or otherwise, of impacts can get the public behind BLEO missions. The framework for these things exists already in the contracting system of KSP. I think the OP makes an excellent point regarding reputation. Rewards for contracts should have be multiplied through some value of reputation accrued v. Reputation possible. If you have a disgraced program, you get less funding until you successfully fly more missions. Perhaps, below certain levels of reputation a maximum launch cost gets applied by The Royal Society of Kerbonautics? As is reputation affects contracts, and that's good, but there isn't much financial sting for losing a number of Kerbals.

Good suggestions, all! I apologize for my spelling. I am surprised nobody has mentioned Goddard yet.

Laziness. I am too lazy to go back and copy stuff. I suppose I should, though.

Actually, sufficiently tested and documented home brew SRBs would be awesome. How Kerbal is that, anyway?

I like this idea. Perhaps it could be something like our customizable fairings? Otherwise, we could add an ablative slider to tweak ambles on certain parts.

If you haven't noticed, there is a super-nerd trying to build his own liquid fuel rocket engine. He has posted his ideas in the science section of the forums and he is a KSP fan. If he manages to build and test his motor, I would like to suggest Squad gets his data and makes a part (porkjet!) that players can use. So far his math looks pretty cool. It is also a cool way to motivate people to build stuff at home, play KSP, etc. Since he is building his rocket at home, I imagine it's performance wouldn't be stellar (Nyuk Nyuk) but it's cost would be very low.

Wrong Way Corrigan was a good suggestion too. WRT Chuck Yeager, he was really good at self-promotion. Some of his antics with guys at Muroch Dry Lake make him a little less Kerbal-y. For example he deliberately had Neil Armstrong land a P-80 on a soft spot out in the boonies and get stuck. Neil, following Chuck's guidance followed left and right commands and landed at a specific spot on the flat dictated by Yeager. Once they were in that soft spot and stuck, Yeager berated Neil that, with all of his education he couldn't tell that the field was soft. There's also a little matter regarding how some civilian test pilots were treated. Decades later, Yeager puts his name on a flight simulator and has little cut always of him talking like a sage of the skies. Yeager was good, but he doesn't strike me as a Kerbal. Other guys, like Doolittle, or Steve Wittman fit the bill. Doolittle made his own equipment and test flew it. He engineered solutions and put hispink butt in the seat to execute those solutions. In his autobiography, Doolittle makes little mention of his achievement but writes for a nnumber of pages about how he regretted yelling at his wife after she distracted him during takeoff. Since I haven't seen a Kerbal gyrating his hips or thumping his chest yet, I think his behavior may be a bit more Kerbalish. Wittman, from a family as poor as church mice, made his own planes and started winning air races. He died in an airplane of his own design from his own grass airstrip while flying well into his 90s. In aviation and aerospace there are a lot of personalities. The nature of the industry, especially on the fringes of the industry tends to accentuate people's personalities. Yeager is definitely great, but I think, like Amelia Earhardt, he benefits from good publicity. Also, I am open to reprimand regarding Yeager. While I would like to think that my opinion is somewhat informed by my experience and education, this is probably an artifact of my own, ten ton ego.