Louella

I have some objects, debris really, that are on high sub-orbital trajectories, with a periapsis of like 60+ km. Now, I'd expect them to decay, slowly spiralling into the atmosphere and burning up. Which is fine. But, do I have to be flying them actively during their time in atmosphere, so that the game physics updates their orbits each pass ? Or will they decay on their own, while I am actively controlling other spacecraft ?

I am wondering how this mod will interact with the rescue contracts ? What would I need to do, to rescue a Kerbal who has turned inactive due to lack of supplies ?

Ooo, I remembered a question I was going to ask... The CommNet stations, are they actual ingame buildings ?

Cool. I'll keep an eye out for interesting mods. I remember one, that I've already tracked down, which had sounding rockets as a thing to do some early launches with. First stage is exploration - landing on things and measuring them second is exploitation - landing on things and using them to do stuff third, is colonisation - landing on things and living on them. heh.

Well, I was thinking something more along the lines of classic sci-fi domes and such. Greenhouses, mineral refineries, and things of that nature, with a permanent population.

Hello there ! I've returned to KSP after a couple years away, things look interesting, looking to try out the new features that have been introduced since the last time I played. Few questions about things: 1. Are there any official plans to put more landmarks on Kerbin ? Like, a handful of cities or something to show Kerbin is inhabited ? 2. Are there any official plans to allow you to build habitable outposts on the different moons and planets ?

what's all the muck on them? Bird droppings? Are those buildings open to the environment?

How do you communicate with spacecraft around Mars ? The existing Deep Space Networks are all government owned, aren't they ? Is it realistic for private companies to construct their own deep space networks to communicate with their private space explorations ? Or are they just going to use one or more of the existing government ones ?

when seeing this topic, my thought was a grumpy looking Kerbal saying: "KERBALS? WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?!"

Who buys the products that the robot workers make ?

Yeah, it's literally a "game-changer", so a stock implementation has to be well-thought out. I had a look for your life support mod, and yes, a single resource to manage is a good idea. It's easy to make things complex, it's difficult to make them simple. which is part of my thinking behind the thing I suggested earlier. Psych support, to keep the Kerbals sane when confronted with the Terrible Secret of Space, and Scientists can rescue catatonic Kerbals.

I use MechJeb, for "routine" contract missions, such as putting a satellite into orbit. I need to take satellite contracts to get funds to do other things, the automation that MechJeb allows in reaching and matching orbits helps with these contracts. I try not to use MechJeb for anything that I've never done before, myself. Like, the first rescue mission I did, I did the rendezvous myself. Thereafter, I put a MechJeb thingie on, to handle the routine things of getting into orbit.

A less lethal option would be to rethink the whole situation. Instead of food/drink/air, there are other options. Instead of Life support, then... Sanity support. A Kerbal that runs out of their psych-stabilising pills goes insane, and falls into a catatonic state, due to being exposed to the Terrible Secret of Space. The rate of consumption of psych-stabilising pills might not be uniform - could tie into the Courage/Stupidity traits of the crew or something. A catatonic Kerbalnaut can be revived by a Rescue mission with a Scientist, but remains in a state where they don't necessarily gain XP for their return to Kerbin. Which has the result of penalising a failed mission, in career mode, due to lack of XP, but not overly harshly. And retains the principle of Rescue Is Always Possible.

I've had Mun landers tip over on slopes that didn't look steep enough for that to happen. 5degrees or so. Big tall landers, because they were for contracts that wanted a cupola+science laboratory, which necessitates a tall, top-heavy lander. Tip over, and all that happened was a solar panel broke. Otherwise, the craft and crew survived. But that craft isn't going to launch from the surface again. Now, to return them to Kerbin, a rescue lander can be built. However, that rescue lander is N days away. And that problem of the rescue mission being N days away only gets worse when you get further out. Due to both travel time, and launch windows. If a lander on Duna has a problem, then a rescue mission is many, many days away. For some planetary bodies, it would mean that unless a rescue mission had launched only a couple days after the main mission, then rescue is impossible. Life support changes the nature of Kerbal Space Program more dramatically than anything else, I feel. It turns the stories that attract people to the game, of "whoops, now, how to sort this", into "Oh. Damn." Changes the whole principle where, as long as a Kerbal survives the landing, you can always get them back, to one where surviving the landing isn't enough. That's a bigger change than anything else that's ever been proposed, I think. Well, other than the time the Mun first appeared.

it'd mean that I would almost certainly never find out if I'd be a good mother or not. not that I was planning on doing that any time soon, but you know, it'd be nice to have the option to. A vastly increased lifespan would have a bigger impact on women than it would on men, I think. Due to stuff like wear and tear on the female reproductive system. Like that condition that causes fibrous growths in the womb, that gradually reduces fertility. Like, say a person could expect to live 500 years. Unless medical technology can extend the age at which a woman could carry a child to a similar extent, then it'd mean that a woman would be in competition with a lot more generations of her descendants. And that's not good. Like, it's fairly rare for someone of college age to have a great grandmother currently. So people usually have no more than two or three generations of descendants that they're in competition with, for stuff like living space, jobs, that sort of thing. But if a woman lives 500 years, but has to have all the children that she'd want by the age of 50, then, she'd have like 9 generations of descendants that she'd be in competition with. And that'd be a bit of a problem.