KSK

I give rep for helpful posts, informative or well reasoned posts (including ones which rebut my own), for posts which I think just needed to be said, and for interesting fanworks stuff. I really should give more rep to modders, although in my defense I don't use many mods.

A quick Google search for 'multidimensional superfluid' throws up The Big Bang Theory as two of the top three hits. Superfluid vacuum theory is a thing apparently, although Wikipedia has tagged it as a fringe theory. 'Negative energy density of space-time' sounds spurious to me on a macroscopic scale but might be applicable at a quantum vacuum scale. Without knowing any more than that, I'd peg it as probable nonsense, but I'm happy to be corrected by one of the actual physicists on here.

Thanks folks! Hey Excalibur - welcome to the thread. Glad you're enjoying the story and thanks for dropping by to say so! Briansun1 - I can certainly do that, although some care will be needed to avoid spoilers. Probably best if I leave it until the next few chapters are out if you don't mind - you'll see why.

I'm guessing the performance gain wouldn't be enough to justify the added complexity? 'Slow' is also relative - even the F1 didn't take more than a few seconds to hit full thrust.

Dramatis personae now updated and formatted.

Either version sounds good to me!

From Wikipedia: "The joule is the SI unit of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it 1 metre against a force of 1 newton." I take a weight and lift it against gravity (or to borrow an example from this thread, I take a book, lift it against gravity and place it on a table) I have applied a force over a distance so I have done work. The book has gained gravitational potential energy because it is now higher than it was. The amount of work I did is equal to the amount of gravitational potential energy imparted to the book. In order to apply that force and do that work, my muscles required energy - see lajoswinkler's post for the fine details. Energy is conserved overall - the energy expended by my muscles will be equal to the energy imparted to the book + wasted thermal energy (because my muscles are not 100% efficient). Alternatively, I have inefficiently converted chemical potential energy into gravitational potential energy, doing work in the process.

Well I guess you could also argue that once you've been to a planet and read the encyclopaedia entry once or twice, you're basically back where you started in terms of reasons to go back. But I don't care - I think it's a great idea!

Absolutely. The Original Three have very distinct personalities, as do quite a few of the randomly generated ones. I've also got a load (possibly an excessive amount ) of background detail for Kerbin and the kerbals as a species, much of it completely unconnected to their space program.

I already mentioned that those were on rails. Because looking realistic isn't necessarily the same as being fun. Clearly it is for you, but other players may not agree. I admit that I don't understand what your diagrams are showing (and so this could be completely wrong) but it sounds like you're talking about gravity gradient stabilisation (GGS). I think this could work in principle in KSP but getting it to actually work would be difficult. Quick summary of GGS as I understand it. Newtonian physics - gravitational force follows an inverse square law with distance. Therefore different parts of a spacecraft will experience slightly different gravitational forces, giving rise to a net force on it. That net force will cause the spacecraft to orient such that its lowest moment of inertia will be about an axis pointing towards the centre of the body which the spacecraft is orbiting, i.e. along the gravity gradient. All this falls out naturally from that initial inverse square law. I find it hard to believe that KSP isn't using that, since otherwise nothing about it's physics model makes sense. And within the patched conics approximation, KSP physics does make sense. However, KSP also has two other features which make effects such as GGS very difficult to see in-game. Time-warping a vessel puts that vessel 'on-rails' - it follows a fixed path in a fixed attitude and external forces acting on it, such as atmospheric drag and gravity gradients are ignored. Similarly, vessels which the player aren't currently controlling are also put on-rails. I'm guessing this is done for optimization reasons, so that the player can have several spacecraft in play at the same time, without slowing the game down by subjecting all of them to the physics model. It also means that spacecraft which the player isn't currently flying will follow a completely predictable path, so that the player doesn't have to worry about them going off course. Both of which seem like entirely acceptable reasons to compromise realism in favour of gameplay. If external forces aren't applied, then a spacecraft will maintain a fixed attitude relative to the sky, which is exactly what we see in-game for time-warping vessels. If you were patient enough, in principle I think you could set up a suitable spacecraft in orbit around Kerbin, not use any time acceleration, switch off SAS and watch as GGS pushes it into a physically correct attitude. In practice, stock KSP controls aren't precise enough. I've tried something similar myself by switching off SAS and trying to put a ship into orbital rate - but I can never set up the ship rotation accurately enough for it to work. Edit. Agree with RIC's comment, so this is my last post here. Happy to take the discussion off-thread or onto a different thread.

Go ahead. Just be sure to a) charge me a minimal fee, b)make it useful or fun (depending on software type) from the outset, and c) send me a steady stream of upgrades and significant improvements for the next two years. Back on-topic, I might not be getting what you meant by 'correct gravity forces'. As far as I can tell, gravity works just fine, albeit using a simplified model (planets-on-rails and a patched conics approximation.). As other folks have pointed out, a proper n-body physics model would be feasible and, assuming it can be implemented in Unity, I've personally got no doubts that Squad could build one if they wished. It would make the game more complicated though, and I'm not sure that the added complications would be worth it. For example: tidal forces. They would have a microscopic effect on the Kerbol system over the course of a game, so no gain there. Seeing proper tides on Kerbin would be pretty cool but (to me) would be a 'nice to have' more than anything else. Which bugs and bad programming did you have in mind?

Chewie? CHEWIE! Pass Space Cowboy the hydro-spanners!

OK, here we go. Eventually, I'll add this to the first post before the contents section but, for now, I think it contains a few too many spoilers. Only the major KIS characters are included (you'll be glad to hear ), although the organisation is very much larger than this. I've listed the various 'hats' for the main characters for ease of reference. Names in brackets are backups or deputies for those roles, when the principal is on a flight. Dramatis Personae The Kerbin Interplanetary Society Propulsion team - Wernher, Ornie, Malmy, Hando Logistics and systems integration - Geneney, Roncott, Camrie Electronics - Bill, Neling, Edsen Life support and capsule systems - Joemy, Ribory, Lowise, Seanan Tooling and Manufacture - Richlin, Ordun, Adelan, Ordrie Engineering - Jeb, Bob, Seelan, Lucan, Wilford, Lowise Flight Director - Geneney, (Lucan, Jeb) Controllers - Wernher (Ornie) - Propulsion - Lucan (Edsen) - Flight Dynamics - Joemy (Ribory) - Capsule Systems - Neling (Bill) - Guidance - Sigbin - Wakira Station - Doodlie - Wakira Station Mission architects - Jeb, Bill Trajectory planning - Lucan, Edsen Pad Crew - Richlin, Geneney, Bob, Lucan Catering - Derny Mission Trainers (The Booth Crew) - Lodan, Calzer, Tomcas Moho Pilots - Jeb, Camrie, Wilford, Adelan, Richlin, Joemy Eve Pilots - Roncott, Ribory, Calzer : Ornie, Ordrie, Edsen Pioneer Pilots - Wernher (+James and Sherfel from Rockomax Ltd) Rockomax Ltd Company Manager - Ademone Flight Director - Nelton Head of Structural Engineering - Danfen Head of Propulsion Systems - Hanbal Head of Electrical & Environmental - Joebal Controllers - Melvey (Payload) - Lemgan (Flight Dynamics) - Orbald (Guidance) - Jerdo (Tracking and Trajectory Planning) Pilots - Sherfel, James, Kerke, Tommal, Barrie, Jondun The Kerbin Space Agency Director - Lodan Head of MIR - Aldsen Head of Space Radiation Lab - Shermal Head of Kerbin Mapping - Joefen Head of LOST - Nelfred Telecoms and Systems Engineering - Fercan Engineering & Estates - Kelney The Kermol Keepers - Jonton, Gerselle, Patbro, Ludvis Kermol - Ferry, Fredlorf, Meleny Kerblets - Joenie, Adbas Stratus Inc. Director of Engineering - Shervin Head of Business Development - Thomplin Business Development Manager (Space Systems) - Halnie Probo(dobo)dyne Programme Manager - Dunney Project managers - Jernie, Sidbo, Germore Engineering - Mitfred, Henbin, Mitrie C7 Aerospace Research Director - Al Test pilot - Enley KBS News Section Head - Jonbo Anchor - Leland Outside Broadcasting Technician - Donbart (Don) The Twelve Pillars President Obrick President Enemone President Chadlin President Lanrick Chief Ambassador Burvis Chief Ambassador Aldwell Chief Ambassador Donman Others Sambus - Aide to President Obrick. Harsen - Bodyguard to President Obrick. Kerm investigation teams - Obrett, Gerrigh : Jonburry, Kirman Politicians (Regionality of Kolus) - Ambassador Gusemy, Envoy Neilbin. Jorfurt - Bar owner and manager. Lemdan - Rafter, sea captain. Erlin - Berelgan Institute researcher. Gusden - Logistics manager reporting to Envoy Neilbin.

OK, that last post was out of order. I apologise to Kegereneku and would like to thank him for doing the decent thing and taking matters off-thread.

Not helped by only getting new chapters sporadically. On the other hand, that's twice that's come up now, which is probably a sign to go easy on introducing new characters willy-nilly. Also, I can easily post a Dramatis Personae if that would help?

I don't post too many comments on craft designs but wow... that is an incredible piece of work! I've gotta ask though - how on Kerbin do you land it?

Oh good grief. If I show any sign of 'going Jordan', please do say! I well remember buying book 10 in hardback - and then resolving never to buy another WoT book in hardback. General point - fear not, The Kerm interaction stuff is definitely leading somewhere! There's a couple of ways it could go though and I'm not quite sure which way will work best yet. The idea for this chapter (not sure how well it came across) was to compare and contrast the standard Keeper-Kerm relationship, where both sides are separate minds, with Jonton's situation as a single entity. Left to its own devices, a Kerm improves the surrounding soil for its own ends which tends to improve conditions for all surrounding plants (unless they start getting a bit too competitive but that's a different matter). The Keeper's role is to guide that process so that it favours certain plants (kerbal crops) over others (weeds). But to do that, the Keeper needs to be able to recognise the weeds as sensed from the Kerm's perspective. The way to do that is to have control plots of the different weeds that Gerselle can spot from within communion and then ask the Kerm to get rid of anything that looks like the control plot. Maybe that was over-thinking things slightly but the notion of planting markers in the real world that can be detected within communion is something that will definitely come up again. Jonton, on the other hand, is trying to get his head around the idea of effectively being Kerm and Keeper in one. Loose analogy - its the difference between programming in BASIC and programming 'next to the metal' in assembly code. One is relatively easy, the other much less so but ultimately far more powerful. I'll just leave that hanging there... Specific points: The Whirligig work was supposed to be part of the 'KIS does stuff differently' theme. More on that to come, as folks have correctly guessed, but suffice to say that having the boss pull an all-nighter to fix a balky simulator is probably not something that you'd see very often at Rockomax. Double description: Good point, those paragraphs could easily be merged. Final part. Hmmm. Might make more sense if I swap that around a bit. How does it read now? Cheers, KSK

Heh - I just (mis)read Pennisula as Peninsula anyway. I'm guessing that it's the Africa shaped chunk of land (possibly even that whole continent) that KSC is on in-game, with Capitol City not a million miles from the KSC location. Bill the money-kerbal by the looks of it, which is a nice twist on his usual role! Yeah - I'm liking the way the Original Three are presented here - very original.

Well, we agree that KSP is ultimately a game, but that's about it. People enjoy playing X-plane - as a game. People are pushing for KSP to be more simulator-like - because they think it would improve the game. People play flight simulators for fun, down to the level of building their own cockpits, instrument panels and controls. There's no 'distinct reasoning' required between a simulator and a game - the only difference is in the level of detail, or the degree of abstraction. Also, different players draw the line between 'sim' and 'game' in different places, which again suggests a scale between the two. Oh - and pick another joke. Comic exaggeration is funny and might make your point. Exaggeration taken to its absurd and illogical limit is not and does not.

Yup - but that still requires you to perform contracts to make funds to progress through the game. Career mode is fine but it can also feel less like running a space program and more like completing a bunch of randomly strung together tasks. I'm playing a Science mode game at the moment, so that I can get away from that and play a slightly more directed game without having to care about how I pay for things. Having Science Mode as full-career-mode-but-without-contracts, would be perfect - for me. Others may beg to differ!

To my mind KSP is a simulation video game, leaning more towards a game than a simulator. I disagree that 'game' and 'simulator' are mutually exclusive - instead, I think they're better viewed as two ends of a scale. For example, looking at flight games, one could start with something like the Battlefield games which include aircraft but (as far as I know) makes no particular effort to apply any sort of realistic physics to them. Moving along the scale, we get to KSP which includes an aerodynamic model, albeit not a terribly realistic one. Then we get to the various fighter plane games which are explicitly intended to be more simulator like but where the flight models are essentially empirical. Finally we get to something like X-Plane. Quick off-topic aside. Kegereneku - please could you stop dismissing simulations because they 'don't go down to the Planck scale.' It's an absurd expectation and just looks silly. No simulation of anything goes down to the Planck scale. We currently have no idea which physics apply at that scale to even base a simulation on, let alone scale such a simulation up to something physically relevant - like a single proton.

There's a difference between 'can't program' and 'not going to program because we don't think it adds to gameplay'. But that's off-topic for this thread and something that's been discussed time and again in other threads. Mir was de-orbited by atmospheric drag. The real life atmosphere doesn't have a nice neat cut-off as it does in KSP so, unless they're high enough, vehicles in LEO will tend to deorbit over time. Which is handy for getting rid of space debris. Magnetic drag is a thing but it's a tiny effect compared to atmospheric drag, and so ignored in most real-life calculations. I guess you could sort of simulate atmospheric drag, the need to reboost orbital vehicles etc. in KSP right now by placing a space station so it's periapsis dips just inside the 70km atmosphere cut-off limit. It would be pretty tedious though, not least because as soon as you switch to another vehicle, the simulation would go 'on-rails' for your space station, meaning that it would no longer be affected by drag. Tethers etc. - very cool, not going to happen in KSP because of the 2.5 km limit to the physics simulation. I'm guessing that rewriting such a basic part of the game would be quite a bit of work and probably not worth it this late in development. I know I could think of many more uses for developer time that would have a bigger impact on the game. Edit: Slight correction, Mir was de-orbited deliberately, presumably so it could be dropped safely into a nice deep ocean rather than somebody's back yard. However, from Wikipedia: "Mir's deorbit was carried out in three stages. The first stage involved waiting for atmospheric drag to reduce the station's orbit to an average of 220 kilometres ". So atmospheric drag alone would have de-orbited it given enough time.

Very much agree with this. What would also be nice is to have the KSC facilities auto-update as well as you complete different tiers of the tech tree.

Probably not a great idea, since it concerns moderator decisions on this forum, although I understand it was all amicable.

I would like to see this too. Or at least a re-working of the current contracts flavour text to a) make them more readable, add a bit more variety to them (rapid unplanned disassemblies and checking to see whether Kerbin is perfectly round are getting very old) and c) if an out and out storyline isn't going to work, then at least have some sort of history or meaning to your contracts. Say, for example, that I do a bunch of part test contracts. It would be nice if the flavour text changed to show that you were building a reputation for good (or bad) test results. Likewise, the text could change according to your current reputation. "Make no mistake, this is a tough mission. We're not even sure if it's possible. But if anyone can pull it off, its you!" Contracts are essential since contracts are currently the only way of making money. Therefore it would be nice if you could string them together into something that actually resembled a career, rather than just presenting them as a series of random stuff to grind in order to make money. Other things that would be nice. A two-kerbal capsule that is unlocked relatively early in the tech tree. It would be a 1.25m part and probably wouldn't look that different to the Mk1 Capsule. Basically, I'm thinking Voskhod and Gemini vs Vostok and Mercury - a slight evolution of existing hardware rather than a radically new capsule. The main reason for this is to unlock multi-crew flights much sooner and to give players a reason to do them. At the moment, other than completion, there doesn't seem to be much point to Engineers or Scientists. Scientists especially - by the time I've unlocked sufficient tech and building upgrades to make them useful in a Mk 1 capsule, then I'm pulling in so much science from other sources, that their bonus feels a bit wasted. Being able to send up a pilot and scientist together in the early game would be a different way to earn some early science. Moving the HOT-2 to an earlier position in the tech tree and adding another early science instrument. I'm thinking a Geiger counter, or suitably kerbalised version thereof, if 'radiation detector' is thought to be a bit too serious. Again, adds some extra things to do at the sub-orbital or LKO stage of a career game. Adding a camera series of parts. Starting with big clunky things that actually add weight to a payload and ending in lightweight systems that weigh about the same as current science instruments. Mainly used as a source of rep, gained by bringing home photographs of celestial bodies from space, or just views from space. Again, something else to do in the early game and also adds some point to uncrewed probes. Photographs have been a staple way of generating interest in spaceflight pretty much since spaceflight started - think movie footage from the Apollo missions, or pictures of deep space from Hubble, or more recently the rover's eye footage from Mars and the Rosetta mission. At the moment though, photography is completely lacking in KSP.