boomerdog2000

Always double check the computer results. It appears the game was controlling the ship from the lander so all the navball indicators were backwards, which messed up mechjeb. It was burning prograde from its point of view.

This discussion is in progress a few threads down. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/56453-Money-in-Career-Mode-Contracts-Office

I think he was more referring to how he got on that trajectory in the first place.

Try launching through the launchpad and not the VAB. I believe crew assignment shows right up.

I'm fairly certain it was only if the lights were on, but I haven't verified that either. I can definitely confirm the 160 km performance boost though.

One thing I'm concerned about with time based funding is, since there's no construction time for rockets in ksp, many things can be launched and built very quickly. I managed to assemble a 5 piece station in Kerbin orbit and launch the first piece of my interplanetary ship in the course of less than a kerbal day. This makes me worry that most yearly/time based budgets would just be using it up in a few missions then time-warping until your next cash injection.

With the current system I don't believe this is possible. This would require the physics system to have the craft loaded and running at all times, to keep track of aerodynamics and fuel level, which is not something you generally want to do since it would cause all other flights to lag.

Slow down with infinite RCS fuel and a rock on the keyboard maybe?

What docking ports do the components have? Clampotron Sr.s would be the most stable but you can generally get away with normal clampotrons as long as you don't accelerate too fast. Also how did the ships explode completely? That sounds fairly difficult to do.

You guys can actually hit the runway? Just kidding, the current runway seems fine to me(when I can hit it). Landed many a B9 spaceplane on it/near it.

I guess that's what I'm concerned about. What defines a healthy, running space program? I think some of us feel it is being able to do things others ask of us. While others feel it is having their own successful missions. Both options are true success-wise, I'm just not sure how we could get the game to recognize the second option.

While asteroids would be cool, they are on the what not to suggest list.

I'm not sure if that's the issue. I believe it lies with the game not liking to undock pieces that would count as debris, so they need to have a core of some sort.

It also helps if you change the CONIC_PATCH_DRAW_MODE = 0 is the settings.cfg to 0 as shown here. This allows you to see what your predicted orbit is around the planet in question, so you can focus the camera on Kerbin and mess with your intercept from a maneuver node in deep space.

Could always just send them up in a station.

Far too pretty? The gravity and atmosphere are crushing, it's probably boiling hot and for all we now the oceans could be acid. The only difference is it's purple.

I was assuming the missions could be repeatable. The idea being as you get better tech and experience you can earn more money since you'll lose less parts. I guess I don't like the idea of any sort of hard cap to the money regardless of how high it is.

I guess I misunderstood your original general missions idea. Would you be able to repeat them and what might they entail? From my understanding you were talking about getting rewards for achieving things like orbiting or flying by other planets. Which seems limited because we can run out of planets to orbit or land on.

Ah ok, I wasn't planning on starting a new game and was instead thinking about supporting what I like to do in sandbox ( build interplanetary bases, stations, whatnot) with career mode missions to make my program feel more meaningful. I guess our end-game goals are different. I like building up as much as I can and building a massive program.

I can't believe I haven't thought of that before...

That's a fair argument. How would you handle getting stuck without new discoveries for too long or achieving all the rewards from discoveries and then running out of funding though?

This discussion is already in progress here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/56453-Money-in-Career-Mode-Contracts-Office

Only thing I could think of is watch your usual spaceplane stuff, center of mass vs. center of lift and maybe if it lags swap out some of those solar panels for rtgs.

I think a combination of being able to pay for training and on-the-job would make sense. That way once your space program is up and running you don't have to do too many training flights for rookies, or break something on purpose for your kerbalnaught to repair. Perhaps there could be a cap on the training or it gets much more expensive for the higher levels.

This should also allow planetary bases to play a bigger part if you manage to park them near enough different biomes.