Luckless

Yeah, your camera embedded in any modern phone can crunch far more numbers than all the computers on the Apollo capsules. The phone itself has can crunch more numbers than all the computing NASA had access to at the time.

After several sub-orbital, then a few orbital, followed by several missions to Mun and Minmum with highly questionable safety planning, my Jebediah is kicking back watching the 'engineers' sort out safely and reliably transiting to Duna and back. I assume he has been laughing at the feeble attempts of the 'landers' to get their orbits correct, as so far the only lander to reach the surface failed to make it to orbit with enough fuel for the return trip, and no one had even figured out how to make some kind of a docking port so more fuel could be sent to it on a later mission.

It would not be probable, not that it wouldn't be possible. Several years ago I read a neat little paper on the idea of a 'shell' star, which was simply a star like formation that forms around something else that acts as a super dense core. I'm a computer scientist, not a physics, and my memory is rather vague on the details. I can't remember what the requirements for the core were, but there was something neat going on that would keep the hydrogen 'cloud' around it from simply collapsing in as a neutron star like object or similar, but it would provide enough pressure to sustain active fusion on something smaller than the scale of a gas giant. I do remember that the writer had also included an expansion to the paper that demonstrated sustained gravity based fusion in a star like process on something as small as earth, but it was getting into some 'weird' science at that scale.

I think Career mode's use as a tutorial would be greatly improved by the inclusion of a set of tutorial like prompts with suggested goals. "We here at KSP are all new to this whole 'rocket' and 'science' thing. So lets slap a few of these bits together, go for a short flight, and then we'll collect some data from it and get a better idea of what's going on. We haven't really figured out many things that we think might be kind of important, like electricity and such, but don't worry, our guys are working on it." Each time you unlock a new stage of the tech tree the user could be offered some ideas of how the parts can be used. Unlock the first decoupler? Provide the idea of multi-stage rockets and tell them how dropping heavier empty stages can make them more efficient. Maybe even keep a running list of tips based on what is, and isn't, unlocked. If you haven't unlocked any version of lander legs, then have a reminder to the user along the lines of "We haven't really come up with a good way of supporting stuff when we set it down yet. We have dozens of engineers working round the clock on this very important topic. Till we can get them to stop making giant paper air planes from their draft blue prints and actually get to work on a real solution we are going to have to be very careful with how we set down. Might be best to just avoid setting down on moons or other planets for the time being and just do orbital passes of them while we wait." This offers lots of room for some excellent flavour points to be added into the game with some well polished writing, while not getting in the player's way or restricting them, and still guiding them by providing good and useful nudges in the direction of improving themselves without totally over extending things.

It takes a huge imagination to get 600 science in one shot, and try to beat that and get at least 800 for your next mission? Creativity and trying to find a solution that lets you do it, maybe. If you are looking at it from the point of view where the only reason to get science is to unlock parts of the tech tree, and unlocking the tech tree is your only goal, then why on earth are you even bothering with something like career mode? Just play sand box! Science is a number. It is a score. Does it take a huge amount of imagination to find beating your last high score in Tetris as something enjoyable? How high of a score can you get with as few slots on the tech tree unlocked?

Science is a score... Personally I like to go big and challenge myself to collect the most science in a single mission plan that I can.

I actually tend to avoid following game development too closely. But I'm 27 and generally busy with work, photography, and other projects, so game related stuff frequently goes on the back burner for months at a time. And honestly I kind of find it nicer now that I rarely hear updates on some of the projects I follow. Like a few things I've bought in Kickstarter that got delayed. I had completely forgotten I bought them, and then get a cool surprise when the quiet dev pops up months later to say "Hey! I finished a working beta!". I don't suffer disappointments from delays, because the only time I really hear much or pay attention is when someone points out that the new working release is out. But yeah, community management and interaction is a really hard thing to deal with, and it is very easy to have things sour and spiral out of control if a series of things happen to go wrong at the worst times.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons Scroll down till you get to the section of finds in the 1960s. Note position of scroll bar. While we knew of a lot of things in the solar system when we first started trying to leave this rock, there was a lot more left to discover within our own system. The other thing that could be fun is if we start out only knowing a handful of the items that would be obvious, those with a size and distance that would be easily found and tracked. Some would have very firm data on, others could be a little 'fuzzy' on the details, but be reasonably close. All other items in the system then get procedurally generated and left for us to discover with various methods. Just think of how awesome it would be to discover geysers of methane or something on a small moon that no one else in the game had ever seen before, because that moon never existed in that way for anyone else. (Of course I would still want the 'classic' map of predefined planets and orbits to play in.) Just look at the history of Neptune and Pluto. Those easily could have gone unknown for another hundred or more years if we had fewer wealthy geeks in world history. If fox hunting or poetry had been even more popular then our history of science would be a whole lot different than what it is today.

23 183 370.5 You are on a forum for a video game that is all about playing with rocket science, and you haven't gotten a nudge to learn scientific notation yet? *Nudge* It is easy to understand, and I'm sure you'll find them really useful.

That does make failure feel more worth it, doesn't it?

The ascent stage doesn't meet the tanker, the tanker meets the ascent stage. Timing on such a project is exceptionally tight, as the tanker needs to de-orbit itself (and do so accurately) to be able to slow down enough to dock with the ascent stage while it is still in its upward portion of its free-fall, while then matching its changing velocity closely enough to dock with it rather than smashing it to bits. So your timing on the launch has to be matched to the orbit of the tanker craft. When the primary burn fuel is gone both ships are either in position to dock, or the mission failed. No real time to screw around and fix things if you botched.

Personally I've been playing KSP career mode with a second computer handy. It runs my spreadsheets that track what I've done, and my goal is to conduct all science options in all biomes, and return samples from all interesting places I can find that appear unique enough to identify beyond what biomes define. It hasn't been about collecting science, it has been about placing challenges for myself and trying to meet them. So far I'm failing miserably due to being out of practice, but I'm still usually having fun with it.

If you are going to discard games with mostly procedurally generated worlds, then you are also discarding KSP...

I haven't gotten the time to try it yet, but my personal plan is to try it with the most minimal of Eve ascent vehicles that has no other goal than to throw the 2 or 3 seats needed for the crew straight up. Won't even be designed to make it to orbit, just force it above the atmosphere to meet a de-orbited tanker to refuel and get it the rest of the way to an orbital way-station.

That would explain why there are so many willing to keep coming back and sign up with the space program...

Have you ever developed complex software? It is not easy to keep making short little 'updates' on work after a given point in development. You burn out, you have already said everything obvious about the project, and you become distracted by your focus on code and feature development. Rarely is it because the developers stop caring about the community, but far more often it is because they have no idea how long it has been since they've made a post that has zero impact on their software development. It is part of the reason why having a dedicated community management team member is often a very good thing, as they are far less likely to 'forget' small details like dealing with the fan base instead of becoming overly focused on code and tools. A QA lead is often one of the better options to fill this role for smaller teams where everyone has to wear a few hats. They're generally focused on organization anyway, and get their fingers in everyone's pies to understand what is going on, so they're usually already in a position to give updates on the entire team. (Or you can always hire a contractor to do things for you.)

Hit them hard enough and you will start fusing some into cool and new things... Personally I use Mechjeb now, mostly for the extra information that it can provide for me. I will sometimes use it for launches, but it depends on what my goals for that play session is. I see it as a tool, and I will use that tool when it makes sense to. I'm also considering trying to use something like MechJeb to do fully scripted missions. Write out all my movements ahead of time, and make no decisions after hitting launch, just follow the script to its bitter end.

I rarely use Quicksave, but I'm planning to start making limited use of it on major key points during some missions. Finish assembling my station/survey science vessel? I'm hopefully going to remember to quick safe. Odds are good that I'll forget about it if something goes wrong, but sill.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is the one field where failures are still a good thing. Assuming they're well documented. Knowing what doesn't work, what doesn't happen, and what fails is just as important as the successes that spawn something directly profitable.

I strongly suggest taking a look at the Python Programming Language, if you haven\'t already. Wonderful language to work in, especially if you can write decent C code. You get things \'working\' in Python, figure out parts that are taking up the most of your processor time, and then look at replacing them with more efficient C code in those sections. Then check out Panda3D and its licensing options. Very forgiving. But really, nearly any language with support in the last decade is decent. Also, head over to Gamedev.net and check out their forums. Start with small projects, learn to program, and move from there. MMOs are horribly complex games to produce that quickly spiral out of control, and in general end in utter failure/abandonment. If you haven\'t been programming for at least 5 years, and have polished at least one solid (non-trivial) game, then don\'t even think about an MMO. You have a long way to go before you get there.

Most likely it is going to be full colour, or at least a decent sized pallet. Different components and sub-components would have their own colour, and then highlight in a different colour. Still in the general brain storming phase, so keep adding ideas and comments. I\'ll start working on screen mockups at some point in the near future, but so far things are still in the theory/concept stage for the UI. Big part of what I\'m looking for is what info you feel is needed during launch, and how little detail of the actual rocket can I get away with? Would you enjoy watching a little dot on the screen with a few numbers beside it (Velocity, altitude, etc) as it wobbles between the lines of its flight path, and then turns into a pile of different little dots travelling out in a old school 'Windows Fireworks' pattern as you learn you have a problem in your fuel pump... the hard way. (aka, explosions are 20-30 of the largest chunks of your ship left?) Possibly projected in 2D rather than rotating a camera around to watch 3D action? Remember, just because something is stupid doesn\'t mean it is useless!

Sounds interesting, but I would keep working on your control issues so you can jack the low altitude speeds up to something more fun.

On the note of App-KSP interaction, I think the most I would do is provide a basic import/export functionality for component and rocket blueprints, primarily for backup and sharing of your designs in game. But I would publish the specs on the format, so if someone else wanted to write a converter, they would be able to. Graphics wise, I\'m not planning on much. Barely above vector/point based wireframes graphics like what you would find from the 70s/80s. I\'m kind of going for a nostalgic interface here.

KSP is great and all, but lets face it: Carting your large desktop gaming rig around so you can launch rockets while on your way to work just gets you weird stares. Especially when you ask the bus driver if he has an outlet you can borrow for a few blocks. So, this minor problem, coupled with me finally getting something that can be called a smart phone, has lead me to a project idea. I want to try my hand at a mobile development project, and I figured why not something that is like KSP in spirit, but simple enough to run on a cheap, bare bones phone. My current idea is something that has more design and theory testing stages, coupled with an object based CAD system with kind of a late 80s style interface. (Anyone remember CADs that ran on DOS? I swear I\'m not actually that old, I was just a geeky child.) 'Game' flow would be: 1. Component Design - A few basic \'object\' types with rather primitive geometry options, which have different functions. Tanks, valves, pumps, (controls/computers?) etc. You then set up parameters, lengths, heights, widths, diameters, wall thicknesses, initial contents and initial states: Oxygen, Gas vs Liquid, etc. 2. Component Testing - Taking your custom pieces, and putting them in the wind tunnel! Run them through their paces, and see what happens. (Would also double as an advanced object properties calculation step, which would simplify runtime calculations during launch stage.) 3. Vehicle Assembly - Taking all your pretty little components, and slapping them together. (Similar to how KSP does it, but most likely simpler wireframe/2D CAD view) 4. Programming/Flight Plan - Setting up your burn stages etc ahead of time. How things are \'suppose\' to go. 5. Launch/'practical Testing' - Fuel things up, and let it fly. Minimal 'Data Only' style display, possibly basic simplified graphics, small labelled dots on lines. No detailed rendering of what is going on. (Basically the whole project has to run nicely on my HTC Status/Chacha, with its pathetic little 480x320 landscape display. Because, as much as I like the community, I\'ll be programming for my device first and foremost.) May also include designs for building up your facilities. Designing your launch systems, etc, and not killing off your work force. Not yet sure on what to do for a \'campaign\' style game play. Possibly scenario based: X amount of money to do Y mission in Z time. Such as getting to the moon on a shoe string budget. May also include a missile game as well, and roll in a DEFCON style option. 'In the Race for Space, Thermonuclear war can be \'Plan B\''. No idea about any kind of direct multiplayer option currently. I\'m kind of thinking that it would be interesting to be able to design the engines and combustion chambers themselves. Most likely I will just make up a simplified chemistry to go with it, just because having a totally accurate sim for it sounds a whole lot less fun to program. So, other thoughts or input on such a project? I figured I would start the initial planning with input from this community on general ideas, because we\'re clearly all fans of rockets. If I get a chance I\'ll do some mockups of UI concepts and do a little more paper planning over the weekend. Possibly get more detailed User Experience Documents written up. Also, given that I\'m starting this project and looking for input on another developer\'s forum, I won\'t be planning this as a paid app unless the devs give it the thumbs up later. (Assuming it even gets off the ground. Most of my programming is done for stuff running on 'computers' the size of small buildings. Working with the runtime resources of a smart phone isn\'t really in my field of experience, so this could go horribly horribly wrong.) Not currently looking for help on the project. Not considering an iPhone version at all. (Unless someone wants to send me a Mac Mini, and $105 USD for dev account and XCode. And possibly a 3rd gen iPod Touch.)

This depends on if the atmosphere is created before or after the planet is brought up to speed. If it comes after the planet is spinning, then yes, stuff gets blasted out like a cool space fountain. If however, the air was there (And suitably dense enough) before acceleration, then you get some really cool weather effects. Namely, insane conditions near the surface. The spinning planet will accelerate the atmosphere/cause drag, creating huge amounts of heat during the energy transfer. Hot, fast moving air is this pushed upward against slower \'cool\' air, where it slows back down again, converts more energy to heat, and then gets pushed back down by atmospheric pressures to be warmed up again. Your shear forces from up/down drafts is going to be a pure nightmare, and actual temps really depend on the gasses involved, and planet-star relationships. Also, remember your actual zone where the gravity issue comes into play is near the equator, and surface velocities are going to slow as you move north or south toward the pole. Weather patterns would be wicket indeed. (And erosion/sand storms? That would be truly hellish.) I checked the numbers in a fluid dynamics system that I shoehorned to run a quick test. Looks possible, but my numbers were a bit of a hack job, and the sim was kind of low density, but still. But as for the planet itself, you are going to have to consider body deformation. Look at the speed of earth\'s rotation, and the amount our planet is deformed from a sphere. Now consider what happens when you speed it up. I wouldn\'t want to try landing on it.