Geschosskopf

Sounds like a quote from Atomic Rockets But even assuming that there is no political or PR opposition to using a "Liberty Ship", that technology is at about the same level of "ehhhh, maybe someday" as metallic hydrogen. And even if that huge list of obstacles is overcome, you still have to conjure up (by magic) an economically viable reason for doing any such thing. Meaningful colonization has always and will always be driven by economics. The original reason for modern humans spreading out, from the get-go right up through the Classical Age to the colonizing of the Americas, was retroactive birth control. They made more babies back home than the local subsistence system could support so it was either go somewhere else or starve. Since then (from AT LEAST the Age of Empires if not the Bronze Age), it's been all about the money. There were fortunes to be made because either the colonies produced industrial quantities of some valuable exotic product in high demand or produced the same old goods in industrial quantities but from outside the control of the vested interests back home, so at better price margins. So, I'll give you another quote from Atomic Rockets..... You still have to magic some MacGuffinite (aka motive) into existence. Can we ever, even with ground-launched nuclear lightbulbs, move enough people (minimum 400,000 PER DAY) off-planet to make any dent in Earth's population overload? No. So a Mars colony doesn't solve any pressing problem on Earth. Will Mars ever produce anything, in higher quantity and/or at cheaper prices (including shipping, of course), than we can make the same thing here on Earth? No. So there are no fortunes to be made from colonizing Mars. Will a Mars colony ever be self-sufficient? No, at least not until it can grow enough trees and cotton, and staff the factories that use them (which only adds to the problem), to produce enough toilet paper and tampons not to need more shipped out every month or so. Given that all Mars colonists and any crops they grow will be underground to escape the radiation ultimately stemming from the lack of a magnetic field, which not even UFO technology can fix, this is never going to happen. So, no matter how you slice it, interplanetary colonies in any meaningful sense are just never going to happen without magically overcoming not only the physical barrier of Earth's gravity well but also the utter lack of economic justification. But I have no problem accepting colonies in a game, just as I enjoy reading The Lord of the Rings. They are quite similar things. No connection to reality, and thus a welcome escape from it.

True. But in the Kerbol system, the planet the base is on is already inclined somewhat relative to Kerbin, or perhaps the other moons around Jool, so that's a problem you already have to deal with. So again, my money's on Kerbin having some tilt, or it really isn't worth implementing. This is why I hope the game provides instrumentation to deal with this. Challenge accepted Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but definitely someday, I shall make you cry. You'll be looking over your shoulder the rest of your life

And this also realistically puts the interstellar ship into what is effectively its own universe. There's no way there can be any meaningful contact between the homeworld and the colony until UFO tech comes along. Thus, suspending operations at the homeworld and only playing the interstellar ship would not be a problem from a realism standpoint, as the 2 would never have anything more to do with each other. I'm sure you'll be able to play the game that way if desired While I understand your concerns, you're actually complaining about the wrong thing The magic actually comes from the interplanetary stuff. The interstellar stuff is just the logical outgrowth of the interplanetary stuff. Without magic and/or UFO technology, humans are SSSSSSOOOOOOOOO not ever going to colonize even the Moon, let alone Mars, in any significant, game-changing way. Sure, we can send a few minivans worth of folks there and maybe get them back (or continually resupply them). Will that change anything here on Earth? Not in the slightest, unless some spin-off consumer good comes along, the next Velcro. Will that make us a "multi-planet species"? Not at all. AT BEST, it will make us 2 separate species, but most likely it'll just still be us here on Earth with some parasitic, unemployed adult kids living in our basement (actually attic, I guess). So that's reality with foreseeable technology. BBBBBOOOOOORRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGGG To avoid this boredom, KSP2 seems to be the exact opposite. We appear able to build huge, self-sufficient, reproductively and economically viable, materially productive colonies all over the place,, and have them interact as part of a cohesive political whole. Yay! All our childhood dreams of evil space empires interplanetary civilizations come true! But this, by itself, is completely magic, regardless of the type of rocket used to fly between planets. The real hurdle is just getting to low orbit with MANY oceanliner-loads of colonists, all their personal belongings, and enough stuff for them to build both homes and somewhere to be gainfully and usefully employed (periodically observing the Mystery Goo isn't a real job, or at least there aren't many openings for that). But KSP2 promises to make this all happen. MAGIC! So, if you accept major colonies on other planets in the Kerbol system, then you should have no trouble accepting taking that to the next level and going interstellar. Can't have the latter without the former. Personally, making major colonies all over the Kerbol system has been my primary motivation for playing KSP all these years. I _KNOW_ this is pure fantasy, but KSP is a GAME which I use to escape from reality. Thus, I have no problem happily embracing a big Duna colony in KSP2 (even if it's WAY more feasible to colonize Antarctica instead). But if I accept that, then I must also accept interstellar shenanigans.

It wouldn't make a noticeable difference at Minmus, which is already in an inclined orbit relative to Kerbin. What axial tilt does is effectively put everything into an inclined orbit relative to the planet you're on, even if they actually have a common orbital plane like Kerbin and Mun. So if Minmus was a bit off-kilter, it really wouldn't change things. Nor would it make much, if any, difference at any other planet, all of which are more or less inclined anyway. The only real exception would be if they carried it to extremes and put Jool about 90^ over on its side like Uranus (or Urlum with OPM Tilt) taking all its moons with it. Apart from that, however, the only place where having axial tilt would really makes a difference is Kerbin. Then the standard due-east launch from the equator into equatorial orbit and thence straight off to Mun with no plane changes would no longer work. Which would definitely make an early, low-tech Mun flyby (before unlocking patched conics) rather more of a challenge. So why go to the trouble of having axial tilt at all if not to put it there, in sufficient quantity to force players to deal with it?

It depends on what you need the engine for. I wouldn't use any of these engines for a relay satellite or expendable probe lander And even for the purposes for which these engines were designed, it's often cheaper to use older engines unless you REALLY need the performance advantages of the higher-tech engines. I dunno., Some Frenchmen claim to have finally created metallic hydrogen just a couple months ago (the KSP2 dev even mentioned this in an interview). That's been claimed before but this time around there's reason to take the claim more seriously. So I wouldn't just discard the whole concept out of hand. https://www.sciencealert.com/french-scientists-believe-they-have-created-metallic-hydrogen This claim, of course, has yet to be verified. I well remember the whole "cold fusion" fiasco However, just because we might not have made the stuff yet doesn't mean we can't deduce most of its properties. Unlike "cold fusion", the existence of metallic hydrogen itself is irrefutable from the known laws of physics, at least according to those familiar with such things: Ergo, it's possible to make it. And those same laws tell us what it's like. Really, knowing the properties of metallic hydrogen far in advance of holding some in your hand is no different from knowing the internal workings of stars. Nobody's ever been inside a star to see for themselves but we know the laws of physics that define how they work, and their observed behavior all through their lives tells us our suppositions about their guts are valid. So yeah, metallic hydrogen might only just now be coming within the range of something we can make with current technology, but it's a real thing. And IF, IF, IF it works out as expected and can be economically produced in the industrial quantities required for spaceflight, then metallic hydrogen rockets are going to be a thing. I have a much harder time imagining "torch ships" ever being a thing than I do metallic hydrogen engines. However, I'll accept them as a necessary gameplay mechanic to allow having major colonies all over space. Such colonies themselves are even less realistic but they're FUN, a nice escape from the tyrannies of reality.

Thanks muchos! I dunno if it's a retrofit to an old ship, or just a better way to make new ships. The lander in that clip looks pretty much straight outta KSP1 So maybe what you see here is a standard lander, which wouldn't benefit from the new engine (maybe it's expendable and the new engine is expensive?), being taken to Mun by a new, reusable, highly efficient tug that's worth buying the new engine for?

My own thought is that a "magic drive" might be included simply for gameplay reasons. The main reason I see is to allow players to interact with and continue to play with all the elements of the far-flung interplanetary and/or interstellar civilization that KSP2 allows them to build. Think about an OPM game. Once you launch your 1st OPM mission, OPM becomes your ONLY game., You have to cease all operations from Jool inwards because travel time to most of the OPM planets is usually measured in decades, at least if you want to stop when you get there. All the real time you spend playing the game at 1:1 or even 1:1000 warp mucking around with missions at the "inner planets" is real time during which your OPM missions make no noticeable progress. Do enough of that and your OPM missions will never arrive before the next update breaks the game. So the only way to actually get to the OPM planets is to warp past years, even decades, in 1 go, which means you can't be doing anything elsewhere. This situation is a non-starter for a game whose stated purpose is "building a civilization". What's the point of building anything if you have to ignore it completely while covering the huge distances involved? The way to solve this problem is to reduce travel times significantly. If interstellar trips only take as long as a trip to Jool, then no problem. It's totally possible to have a large game going on elsewhere in the system while a Jool expedition en route. The trip to Jool is short enough to make good progress during warps between Kerbin and Duna. So, how do you shorten travel times this much without FTL drive? By having engines that use high, continuous thrust, which can thrust in the background while you play with your other toys. That', to me, is why KSP2 has "magic engines". But hey, the whole idea of massively colonizing other planets, and have them be able to interact as a cohesive evil space empire civilization, is itself just as magic as fairy castles. If you accept the magic fairy castles, what's the harm in accepting a magic unicorn to fly between them?

Does the term "axial tilt" even have meaning for a tide-locked body? How you could tell if had it or not? Not to mention the other stars' ecliptic planes don't have to be parallel with Kerbol's.

Some. Can you go back to the old "soup-o-sphere" if that was your thing? No. I doubt you'll be able to turn off axial tilt, either. And axial tilt sounds to be yet another compromised "realism" feature. The devs say they're not going to put much of it in the original system, which is the main place it would really matter (especially on Kerbin). So, there likely won't be enough to satisfy those who wanted it, but just enough to bother those who didn't want it at all. That's really a poor design decision---annoy ALL your customers. But that's what always happens when "realism" gets put into the stock game. Which is why it's best to leave such things completely up to the players. Pay attention. What I object to making reentry heating a stock feature.

Thanks for being civil. I'll try to do the same. I honestly can't think of anything to add, at least at this point in the game's evolution. Mission complexity is what you make it. Just as rocket construction is like Lego, so is planning missions. The game allows you to do pretty much anything you want in pretty much any manner and level of complexity you want if the game doesn't have something you want to have in your mission, you can either use your imagination and role-play it, or you can get a mod for it. I firmly believe that being (nearly) "all things to all people" is what makes KSP so popular and so long-lasting. Everybody can find something fun to do in it and, as their skills improve and tastes change over time, they can add complexity as they see fit. But this should always be their own choice, at the time of their choosing. Thus, I always argue strongly for keeping the game as flexible as possible, and against universally imposing things that reduce players' freedom of choice and action. I see such things as doing nothing but shrinking the community, by driving some existing members away and discouraging some new folks from starting. Pretty much every "realism" feature falls into this category. I came to KSP from decades in Orbiter. As such, for nearly all my KSP career, I have done hideously complex missions using lots of realism mods. FAR, DRE, RT, life support, pretty much everything except RSS (seen enough of that in Orbiter). But I realized that's just me. Others don't like such things. So I have never advocated making any of these things stock---quite the opposite (ESPECIALLY no stock life support). I don't want to force my views on others. But guess what? We now have stock versions of FAR, DRE, and RT. Which don't make anybody happy. Those who didn't want these things at all are stuck with them (some are optional, others aren't). And those who wanted these things to be stock don't like the stock implementation, so all these things still exist as mods. And that's what is always going to be the case for any "realism" feature added to the game. The devs will have to compromise it, trying to appease the "realism"-mongers without alienating (too much) those who don't want these things, and still keeping the game accessible to kids So it would be better all around, IMHO, to not add these features to the game. That's my whole point. Adding "realism" features ultimately hurts the game by limiting the ways you can play it, and thus the number of people it appeals to. And advocating for this or that "realism" feature is forcing your own opinion on others, largely out of egotism. It appears to irk some folks that others, in the privacy of their own single-player games, do things differently, so they want to rain on their parade. Just look at some of the responses I've drawn here. For example, trying to justify the addition of reentry heating by claiming that before, aerocapturing was overpowered. I have to ask, to whom was it overpowered? Obviously not the person who said this, or he'd have used DRE or just avoided touching Jool's air at all. And if it didn't affect him, what business was it of his if others exploited the lack of heat if that's what they thought was fun? I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to remember that KSP is a game which, like poker, can be played in a multitude of ways. We need to keep it that way, and remember that others like to do things differently. As long as what they do has no effect on us, then we should leave them to it.

Well, there's Orbiter for that. Go live out your real-ish fantasies there. Don't force your preferences on everybody else who would rather do things differently. Seriously, the main thing I object to is folks thinking THEIR way of playing is THE ONE TRUE GOD, and demanding the devs force that down everybody else's throats. That's so intolerantly narcissistic. If so, then you haven't been paying attention. So I shall continue... But to what point? Problems are only problems if there's no relief in sight. But if the game provides the antidote, then it's not really a problem. And thus a waste of computation. Re-entry heating is only a problem if the player makes a serious mistake in either design or execution. Do neither and the whole system is all just a waste of computational resources. Sure, you can say KSP is all about "learning by failure", but for anybody who really cares, such mistakes only happen once. Likely on some totally unrelated thing, but that one mistake teaches them to take EVERY variable into account forevermore thereafter. So basically, THE MOST that any so-called "realism" feature can do is punish those who'd rather just have fun and not be bothered and those who, for whatever reason, lack the intellectual capacity to foresee such problems and get kicked in the face by them repeatedly. I, personally, don't like to kick such people. Nor do I like to spoil the fun of those who'd rather not be bothered. If I wan't some "realism" feature in my own game, then I can add a mod or, perhaps, a difficulty setting for it. And by doing so, I leave everybody else to do what they want, without trying to force the way I play my games on them. I see no evidence that you can claim as clean a conscience. Then you've never thought it through. Try again.

For a time, you weren't able to turn off reentry heating. And you've NEVER been able to turn off the ~1.0-ish atmosphere and go back to the original "soup-o-sphere". Which, FWIW, was a MUCH more accurate simulation of the expected Kerbin atmosphere than this "wannabe-Earth" thing we have now. The great fallacy of the realism-mongers is that they equate "realism" with "just like Earth". But Kerbin demonstrably isn't Earth. It isn't even in our universe due to its very existence violating pretty much every one of our laws of physics right down to the level of the fundamental forces. So maybe its physics could be improved upon, but doing so should diverge it even farther from Earthly "realism" than it is now. Us and the Kerbals don't share a common periodic table because our elements can't exist in their universe and vice versa. The one thing that can irrefutably be said about realism in KSP is that trying to force Earth-like conditions on the KSP universe is 100% wrong, due to the very different laws of physics that pertain in the KSP universe. Kerbin couldn't exist in our universe and vice versa. This argument goes away if you play RSS (aka wannabe Orbiter) but, otherwise, Kerbin retains an average density considerably greater than osmium. Therefore, it's best practice never to mention "realism" in KSP contexts unless you're talking about how the alien physical laws of the Kerbal universe can be demonstrated. Why would they? That argument was settled back around 0.23. No sense beating a dead horse. But yeah, that's the exact same thing as reentry heating. Add some solar panels and/or RTGs in the design phase, and never worry about EC again during the mission. Added value to gameplay: zero. Added bother: remembering to add power to a crewed ship. Net result: Increased ship cost, mass, and partcount, and additional useless computational overhead that will never impact the mission. They only play the game in 1 way if they expect to succeed. There are different routes to this state but all routes share 1 common feature--every hazard expected to be encountered during the mission will certainly be overcome, as is known to be prior to launch . Otherwise, either 1) the player made a critical mistake either in design or execution, or 2) the player enjoys just slapping things together and trusting in the gods, come what may. The latter type is doesn't really care about the niceties or they'd have taken them into account up front. The former type is just temporarily incompetent but that's a self-correcting thing. Folks who take this seriously hate failure so do all in their power to never have that or any other mistake happen again. So, um, what else was there to it besides slapping on heatshields? A few more heatshields to create a wider occluded area? A fairing also, perhaps? Changing your descent trajectory a bit? But what, really, is the difference at the end of the day? You make whatever changes are necessary to accomplish your goal. Add parts, alter flightpath, whatever. But when you really do the mission after all the testing, you know that your ship will do the job. That all the heat calculations going on under the hood are just wasting computational power because your ship WILL work--you already know that. But you're stuck with the resulting lag because enough people whined about the lack of reentry heating that now we have the nth version of it. And at the end of the day, it really changes nothing. We land the ship we want at the place we want.

Um... nope. None, zero, zilch, nada. Since things settled down after all the trauma of 1.0 +/- several "hot" fixes, have you ever lost a ship to re-entry heating? Are you ever going to? Do you know anybody who has? The answer to all these questions is "NO!" Why? Because we slap on heatshields which totally solve the problem, whether it be landing at Eve or aerobraking at Jool. IOW, reentry heating really has ZERO gameplay consequences AT ALL. Just put on your prophylactic heatshield and you're golden. The net result for gameplay is EXACTLY the same as before re-entry heat---you do whatever the Hell you want with atmospheric interaction. The only differences now are that 1) you have remember to add a heatshield in the design phase, 2) this adds extra mass, cost, and partcount to your ship, and 3) your computer is bogged down doing numerous pointless heat calculations and keeping track of ablator burning off, none of which will EVER have any effect on the survival of your ship because you followed "safe reentry practices". This is why all the "realism" things folks always go on about are counterproductive. Add the preventative part(s) and the problem goes away, gameplay doesn't otherwise change in the slightest, but the enforced computational overhead needlessly chasing its tail remains. Nope. The above argument has been going on since KSP 1st went public because some folks mistakenly think "enhanced gameplay" means "adding an effectively useless heatshield to a ship that didn't need one before", and similar stuff involving anything else in the real world that's not (or wasn't) in KSP. As long as the game provides the solution to the problem the so-called "realism" feature attempts to add, there's no point in having the problem at all, because it only adds useless computational overhead. I think you misunderstand.... What is the point of the game? To me and, I think, most players, it's "build rockets and go places". Does making folks wait for the proper time of day to launch enhance that or not? No, it just gets in the way. Does having to deal with this real issue fundamentally change the basic mechanics of getting from Kerbin to Mun? No, other than the delay and perhaps the need for an additional plane change somewhere along the line, so you need a bit more dV in your transfer stage. This is what I define as a "bother". Something that adds nothing fundamental to gameplay, just an irksome thing you have to take into account in the design phase, then have to time your launch for. But after that, it's business as usual. So why bother? Just keep everything with zero axial tilt and you'll never notice. Seriously, do you expect EVA Kerbals to be able to ski and iceskate on some days but not others? I don't. So what's the point of having seasons?

Well, from what I understand, the original solar system will be "pretty much" the same. Sure, it'll have spiffed-up graphics. Some orbital tilt here and there. Maybe something actually going on with the Monoliths (or an absence thereof--who knows?). Maybe some OPM-esque planets tacked onto the back end which, if they exist, you can ignore if you want, along with the other stars. But the old system will be the same scale as before, with what appear to be most of the same old rocket parts, no doubt arranged on a very familiar tech tree. With probably very similar contract and Science! processes underlying things. Thus, I see no immediately apparent reason why you shouldn't be able to play a KSP1-type game in KSP2 and ignore colonies and interplanetary stuff completely.

It really depends on how they structure where the colony modules fall in the tech tree and how fast population grows. It might be you can colonize LKO, Mun, or Minmus to build interplanetary ships to explore the original system before going further afield. I also envision that the engines (at least) for interstellar ships will need exotic resources you can't get on Kerbin (helium-3, for example), so I'd not be surprised if you have to colonize other "home" planets to get the resources to go to other stars. This brings up orbital shipyards, which I'm guessing are a thing based on the trailer. Space stations can't be self-sufficient. Even if the life support is a magic closed loop, they'll still need resupplies of toilet paper But a shipyard will need tons and tons of construction materials, too. The only way I can see this happening with an abstract, 4X-style thing avoiding player micromanagement would be if orbital "colonies" weren't stand-alone things, but part of the ground-based colony on the planet they orbit. Then, as the player, you would make the ground colony have sufficient mining and manufacturing modules to supply the orbital shipyard, and probably also an "orbital logistics module" that trucks these materials up to the shipyard, all on autopilot without you having to mess with it. You'd still have to buy it all up front, and get it there, and set it up, but then all the abstract NPC Kerbals living there do all the blue collar work. So, if this is how things will work, it might be possible to build an orbital shipyard at Kerbin reasonably early (in KSP2 terms, mid-game in KSP1 terms). The planet of Kerbin itself would be the "ground colony" supplying the orbital shipyard. You'd pay to build the shipyard. You might even have to add an "orbital logistic module" to KSC to handle the freight. And then, you'd pay the normal price for any ship built at the Kerbin orbital shipyard. It would effectively become another launch site on (only in this case above) Kerbin.

#1, they did NOT say the original system is staying the same, just that it won't change "much". #2, this is NOT a challenge. It's just a bother that adds little or nothing to gameplay.. Just like EVERY SINGLE so-called "realism" feature that has been begged, demanded, and sometimes added to KSP over the years. It's exactly the same as re-entry heating, for example. Pointless. Stick on a heatshield and never think about it again. Just add cost, mass, partcount, and overhead, for zero gameplay value. Planet axial tilt is in this same category.

Having come to KSP from Orbiter, I was and remain appalled by the lack of in-game instrumentation for important tasks and calculations. I really like the new-ish built-in dV/TWR calculator in KSP1 and I hope KSP2 continues that trend by adding some more. Such as... Kerbal Alarm Clock. It's the only way to have several missions going on at once. KSP2 has even more of a need for this than KSP1. More detailed display of orbital parameters, especially higher resolution for orbital period, to better sync up satellites. Something like @NavyFish's Docking Port Alignment Indicator Some sort of ILS to make landing on a specific spot a lot easier. Don't want to land on the colony's greenhouse instead of the pad. And the #1 thing.... MAKE THE MANEUVER NODE NAVBALL MARKER DRAW ON TOP OF THE DIRECTION MARKERS Hell, I wouldn't even mind some MJ-type automation being stock. After all, real spacecraft fly either totally auto or mostly auto with human backup if needed. Cars are even driving themselves these days. Plus, after your 10,000th launch/rendezvous/dock/landing, they all seem tedious. But one of the main reasons I use automation is that the existing in-game instrumentation is so bad and makes things unrealistically bothersome.

Not me. The only jerkiness is in the initial launch sequence. And that I attribute entirely to the horrible external camera shake feature, which I always turn off. The rest of the video is smooth to me. But I was only watching it at 480p. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I'm not rejoicing. I don't see this as adding anything but bother to the game, making it less accessible to the young and less enjoyable to the older but less-serious players. But oh well, nothing I can do about it so no use complaining. I just hope KSP2 will provide in-game instrumentation to allow planning launches to happen for the inclination you want, and a time you can set to warp to that point in time.

I foresee (and sincerely hope) that KSP2 handles colonies the same way it handles KSC in KSP1. This, IMHO, is the ONLY feasible way to do multiple colonies. In KSP1, there are 2 types of Kerbals: Playable individuals you can load into rockets and send somewhere. This is currently the only way to get Kerbals off Kerbin Abstracted, non-playable "population". The global population of Kerbin who works in the industrial base that obviously must exist to supply KSC, plus the workers at KSC itself, some which are named NPCs like Gene. None of these can be played or put in ships. We don't have to feed Gene, Werhner, or the rest of the KSC staff, nor the global population of Kerbin. We don't have to run the mines and factories that make the rocket parts that we assemble at KSC. The only "dirtside" thing we have to worry about is upgrading the KSC buildings. All the micromanagment is abstracted. I figure KSP2 colonies will be a lot like this, with 1 difference: we'd have to establish the global population and industrial base before we could have a functional "KSC-type facility on another world. But we wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to micromanage the details of running the mines and factories, trucking resources around, and worrying about life support. All the Kerbals in the colony population are doing those jobs. So, the ultimate goal of the colony is to become a functioning spaceport, KSC on another world. Build and launch ships, hire playable recruits, accept contracts, track asteroids, be a DSN link, etc. This will only happen when the colony has sufficient population and supporting industrial base. To get to this point, first you have to plunk down some starter modules. This is the seed population, what they need to support themselves, and some space to grow into. Once the population increases, you add some more modules to grow their industrial base and provide room for more population growth. Then finally, you add a VAB, launchpad, astronaut complex, etc. The population, the life support, and resource management for all this is totally abstracted. Player input is just bringing in the modules. Pretty much like how you establish a colony in a 4X space empire game. Now, "just bringing in the modules" I figure is going to be a HUGE task. I expect they'll weigh and cost a lot, and you'll need lots of them. I also suspect that the planet's environment will dictate how many of which types you need, and how fast the population can grow. I also expect you'll have to put the modules on or near sufficient deposits of various resources. Thus, a lot of planning and prospecting will have to happen first, and then the major colonial expeditions to bring in the modules. But because all the details of how the colonists spend their time are abstracted, you don't have to keep checking in but can go off explore and prospect for future colony sites elsewhere.

Good to see you again. You know I'm expecting some even MOAR epic KRON mission in KSP2 I have as feeling most of these will happen. I'm cool with most of these but there are a few I disagree with, or think should be options. I dunno. I don't see this having a useful gameplay purpose. All it really does is make you wait for a specific time of day to launch into the inclination you want, then have to do more plane changes along the way. IOW, it gets in the way of folks just slapping stuff together and going somewhere, which is one of KSP's main purposes (especially for the younger or less-serious part of its audience). However, if there was some sort of in-game instrumentation, so you could plan all this out properly, and a timer you could set to launch at the proper time, then it wouldn't be that big a burden. I'd prefer this as an option. It doesn't suit everybody's playstyle. As I've said before, I don't think life support should ever be stock. It has only 2 outcomes. The first is simply bogging down your system with a bunch of background calculations that never have any effect on the game because you packed enough supplies to last the trip. The 2nd is that it becomes micromanagment Hell, utterly preventing you from getting on with other things once you establish your 1st colony or launch a long-term mission. It is my sincere hope that colonies are self-sufficient so we don't have to micromanage their life support needs. This could be abstracted by putting the colony in a place with access to the necessary resources, then dropping sufficient modules of various types. IOW, all the worker bees at the colony themselves are abstracted, not playable Kerbals. But once the colony has enough population and you've basically built a new KSC there, then you interact with the colony the same as you do with KSC. Build and launch ships, recruit playable Kerbals, etc. Just as we don't have to run the whole Kerbal industrial base that must exist to support KSC on Kerbin, nor make sure roach coaches arrive in time for lunch at KSC, we shouldn't have to bother doing that with colonies, either. TOTALLY COOL IDEA!!!!! Maybe even allow ships to be put in the museum, too. Like the capsule from your 1st Mun mission, etc.

Yup, I have both. And they're both worth it. I mean, they're not too expensive even for an underpaid fireman like me TBH, I haven't messed with the MH scenario editor AT ALL. I wasn't too excited about that at first, but with more thought I can see it being VERY useful for creating non-standard game starts. Instead of HyperEditing everything out there, with all the time and trouble that entails, you should be able to just plunk it down with the editor. So I'll be trying stuff like that soon. Otherwise, MH is a reasonably large parts basket with lots of useful things that reduce dependency on mods. I find it worth it for the parts alone. And the Ruski suit. BG is definitely worth it for all its new features, even if it's a bit rough around the edges. My money (and hope) is on a system that's highly abstract, like in a 4X space empire game. You don't have to sweat the life support or personally control all the moving parts. I envision that starting a colony involves picking a planet that has certain characteristics, and a spot on the planet with suitable resources. Then you plunk down some starter modules and they take care of themselves. None of this stuff is playable to start with, it serves as the foundation for later playable stuff. As your population increases and you add stuff, eventually you create a new KSC you can launch from, and it will likely have home-grown Kerbals you can recruit. So basically, interaction with and management of the colony would be very similar to how you develop KSC. Just as with KSC, you don't have to ensure the roach coaches arrive in the parking lot at lunch time, you just upgrade the buildings. Yet KSC obviously requires a whole industrial base supplying it, we just don't have to mess with that. With a KSP2 colony, we will have to build that industrial base, but it will be highly abstract. At least that's what I hope we end up with. Well, there are all kinds of things to do. Consider how @Hotel26 is telling such a cool spy story over merely setting up some relays around Kerbin. @M4ck's Hanging Gardens base, basically anything @Tw1 has ever done. Hell, even my own Mo-Henge project. I don't normally commit to characters. They crew is in the spotlight during their mission but that's often the last you hear of them

Nicely done.

Well yeah, but given that nobody's home at Gateway when the lander gets there, any emergency human intervention would come several seconds after events. That seems like it would only be of use in the very early stages of the maneuver, before the lander's moving towards the station. Once the lander's in the pipe, I'm thinking it's in the hands of the gods. Nicely done. But how is the lander reusable if the descent stage is left behind? Are the just going to send out new descent stages?

Lovely tetrahedral network! Agent 086 is really playing a dangerous game here, isn't he? Who ever imagined just setting up some relay satellites would make such a good story? Just shows how even the most mundane things in KSP cam, in the hands of a great writer, be turned into ripping yarns!