DominusNovus

How many new parts in total?

Very familiar, myself, though it addresses primarily the issues in space, rather than getting them into space from the ground.

Given the various health problems that continually are discovered due to a lack of gravity, I'd say that artificial gravity would be essential for any long term space habitation. Seeing as rotation is the only viable solution, other than constant acceleration, a ring or cylinder is the most efficient arrangement.

Certainly. But my concern is just the construction of a rotational ring, regardless of whether it would be for a ship or a station. It would be likely, after all, that it would be tested in orbit, rather than on a voyage. Here's my basic idea, for what its worth: Picture a cylinder, cut into segments at alternating biases, so that each segment is a wedge (the larger the ring, the smaller the angle). After being placed into orbit, the individual segments would rotate along the biases so that the former cylinder is a portion (or, depending on its total length and the angle of the cuts, the entirety) of a ring. Though its a two dimensional comparison, imagine a pizza cut into slices as the final product. While in transit, the slices would be alternating in their directions, laid out next to each other: the crust of one slice out on one side, the crust of the next on the opposite, so that they form one long line of slices, rather than a complete pie. While I think this is a fairly elegant solution to storage, since storage and transportation is likely one of the smaller concerns, I doubt it would be much use overall. But, if I'm wrong and they are more significant concerns, then maybe it would be useful.

The point of my comparison was that the ISS was also assembled piecemeal over years, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

Mind if I ask you for a link? I imagined using water to stabilize oscillations, I'm glad to see that I was on the right track.

Given the limited dimensions in a typical payload fairing, wouldn't the curvature of any given segment of the station limit the effectiveness of being put in place as-is? How is that any different from the ISS?

Rotating rings on a space station or vessel to produce gravity for astronauts is one of my favorite topics in this subject. There are obviously plenty of difficulties with the concept, of course. A particular question I have is how large does the difficulty of getting a ring of any sizable diameter onto a rocket loom in these considerations? For example, fitting a ring space station with a diameter of 100 meters would be quite challenging, consider that the diameter of a Saturn V is only 10 meters. So, of course, it would have to be shipped up in segments, which is also difficult, since the segments would be, themselves curved. But, how important is this concern, when compared to other issues in creating such systems? Is it just a minor hiccup, fairly far down on the list of challenges, or is it a major roadblock?

But nothing new about mining, one way or the other, which is what I was asking about.

Coming back to this, is it safe to assume that there hasn't been any official word on any of the concerns? I hate it when developers are reclusive...

I'm not thrilled with the ambiguity from the Devs, because its human nature to assume the worst when we don't have enough facts to go on. Particularly when dealing with other people, it gives us time to anticipate whatever bad news there is. Now, for what its worth, here's where I'm coming from: I played the demo a few times and liked it (around 0.20/0.21, I forget). After promising myself I wouldn't get hooked, I did my research on the game and saw that they were planning on implementing a resource system, which was a huge selling point for me. It was *the* thing that convinced me to pay for the game. Obviously, there's a risk in paying for future features, but I'm sure many of us have bought games in the confidence that they'll be better in the future. I'm not going to get all melodramatic and talk about the obligations to the paying customer or anything like that. But, when you pay money for software and the developer says that they plan on introducing a feature, and then it starts to really look like they're walking back that plan... it hurts (never mind that it was the feature that sold me on the product in the first place). And the ambiguity hurts more. Again, not to be melodramatic, but this analogy seems very appropriate: Ever been dumped? Hurts, doesn't it? Ever been dumped by someone who just didn't tell you that you've been dumped? Hurts even more. I hope this helps explain why some of us are very upset about this. Of course, the ideal situation would be for the Devs to jump in and say "Hey, guess what? We got it to work, resource mining is coming in 0.23," but I think many of us would be at least satisfied by getting some concrete answers regarding the whole thing. PS, for every person who says that the whole logistical process of extracting and refining resources is boring, many people think the same way about managing apses and docking.

Do we know that for sure? Do we know what they're planning? The response was very noncommittal and vague. The sort of thing a politician would say.

I have to disagree right there. The point of mining out in space is not, at least initially, for a payoff, but to reduce the cost of the launches themselves. Launch a rocket into orbit (or to a low gravity object, like Mun or Minmus) that can produce fuel, and then every other rocket that can reach the first can be made so much lighter. The point is not so much to be for the benefit of one individual mission, but all future missions. How can that be replicated with science or reputation points?

I have to agree very strongly on that one. In my short time with the game, I've lost track of all the times I've forgotten something essential to a mission and had to start over. Besides, having a resource system won't render a mission to the Mun that doesn't include a resource module a failure. Just missions that are launched to harvest that resource. For example, you still might go there just to go there and run experiments in one mission, with a bunch of science modules. Then, you might launch another mission with resource extraction modules. Would that second mission be a failure because it doesn't include a science module to run experiments? I'd personally love the idea of specialized missions, where you've got concrete goals for each one. Plus, so much space news buzz is about the commercialization of space, asteroid mining, thats whats driving the headlines in the real world.

Personally, I'm certain I'm in the extreme minority here, but I'd like an option beyond "I will lose interest without it." I'm a huge fan of resource management games, and, honestly, I kinda view the whole orbital mechanics and launching part of the game as something I have to put up with in order to do the parts I find fun (or will, once I can do any resource management in the game). Thats not to say that launching the rockets and painstakingly aligning everything just right can't be a fun challenge and a rewarding success... it certainly is. But I'm personally a hands-off manager kinda guy that loves to delegate. While this particular idea is far from what Kerbal is or should be, I'd love a game focused much more on the management angle, with the actual flight mechanics and orbital mechanics abstracted to their costs, rather than directly piloted (it costs $x/kg to reach LEO with 1950s technology, only $y/kg to reach it with 2010s technology, that sort of thing). For example, take a space station. You design it, and then find out how much it will cost to launch through various means (one large rocket, multiple modules assembled in orbit, etc. etc.). You launch it, doing nothing other than paying the cost for the fuel, rocket, and other supplies for whatever given altitude you in which you want to orbit. Now, you've got a station with crew that needs to be ferried up and down, adding more cost. Plus food and water for them. The usual logistics. Eventually, you'll be able to launch life support modules to recycle water, and your station becomes a little less costly to supply. Then, some greenhouses to grow crops. A little less costly to supply. You could build some more stations, in higher orbits (or, rather, lift your existing station into such an orbit). Maybe some as waypoints to the Moon. Build a lunar station, to mine Helium-3 and water. Go get some near-earth asteroids for metals, or comets, also for water. Develop an entire space-based economy, bit by bit. Your initial space stations replaced with giant rotating habitats, your temporary moon bases vast mining complexes... etc. etc. I know this isn't what Kerbal is going to be, but I'd play that game for days at a time.