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.

you could try the "stock bug fix" mod, it mentions something about capsules and heat shields tilting: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v1-0-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v1-0-0-27-Apr-15%29-Misc-Utilities-%2818-Jan-15%29

not sure if i'm missing something, but is there a liquid fuel engine for the bigger sounding rocket ? or do you use one of the 'real' rocket engines ? I can see the small aerospike engine, for the smaller sounding rocket fuel tank, but I'm not seeing a corresponding one for the larger one ?

I think, that a system with no more than 2 consumable resources would be best. Like, managing food, water and air, when you need all 3 anyway, just adds parts with not much gain for it. I say 2 resources, because of some alleged quirks of Kerbal biology. I've read things suggesting that Kerbals are some kind of amphibian, but I don't know how official that is. But anyway, amphibians hibernate. So that gives an opportunity for 2 resources. Air, and nutrients (food&water). Hibernating kerbals would still consume air (but at a reduced rate), but not nutrients. Hibernating kerbals obviously couldn't control the spacecraft. Kerbals could hibernate, to conserve resources, allowing a bigger window for a rescue mission. Active kerbals consume more air and consume nutrients, but can fly the spacecraft, and do other activities. Still need to consider what kind of window for rescue there should be. Because of such things as transfer windows, say a mission to Duna. It launches at the ideal window, but by the time it lands and falls over on landing, requiring a rescue ship, then Kerbin has moved and is no longer in the ideal window. So, basically, if the rescue ship, isn't already at Duna, then the crew is in a really awkward spot, aren't they ? So, need to decide between: 1. A single mistake or failure, everyone dies, no rescue ship that isn't already there would make it. 2. There is a window for rescue, which might be extended by hibernating, but only so far. 3. As long as the landing isn't fatal, the Kerbals can wait to be rescued indefinitely. Real world is 1. Where things are currently in stock is 3. Where do we want the game to be ? Also need to consider what the game is supposed to be about. Just exploring, or establishing a permanent presence, that sort of thing. With a goal of establishing a permanent presence, then a more detailed system could be worked out, with things like orbital greenhouses, transferring wastewater to the greenhouse and receiving freshwater and food, and much more. With just exploring, then a more simple system of "life support" as an abstract resource is all that is needed, which simplifies the process of understanding for newer players.

There also has to be some thought put in, as to the endurance of craft, and how it interacts with the possibility of rescue missions. Example:The Mun is what? A day or so away ? Minmus is a week away, i think ? Minmus mission A, requires 2+ weeks of supplies. Something goes wrong on the landing (ship falls over). Rescue mission B, is going to take a week to get there, at a minimum. By which time, the mission A crew will have consumed 2 weeks of supplies. If mission B cannot land nearby A, then the limitations of the EVA suit endurance become relevant, for the crew of A to march across Minmus to B's landing site. So the question is how wide and forgiving the endurance of the craft and the EVA suits should be. On one end of the scale is, the smallest single error means everyone dies, no chance of rescue mission arriving in time, just like things in RL are. On the other end is where we are at the moment, where as long as the crew didn't die when their lander fell over, the player has infinite time to rescue them.

The problem with life support, is that it adds greater penalties for failure, without doing much for succeeding. What advantage is there, to sending a kerballed mission somewhere, as opposed to a robotic mission ? The crewed mission requires the life support modules, adding to the launch weight, and launch cost. Early missions, much of this additional launch weight and cost will not be recoverable, due to limitations on the capabilities of parachutes - radial parachutes aren't a starting part. Crewed mission, has EVA reports*, crew reports, surface samples*. So they offer a little bit more science. But science isn't really in short supply. *once you upgrade the appropriate facilities. A robot mission reduces the amount of science you can get, but, is much lighter and cheaper. So what real benefit, other than the self-imposed challenge of doing it, is there to sending a crewed mission ?

i remember, recently, it was something like, I had unlocked everything in the first tier of the R&D centre, and it was still only something like day 3 or 4 of globally elapsed time. Lots of short duration part testing contracts and so on.

Thanks. Was trying to wrap my brain around some stuff with spaceships with lasers on them. Things like simple tactics and manoeuvres. if A is trying to escape B, then if A suddenly slows down, a yellow laser aimed at B would then be effectively a blue laser, BUT it means that yellow lasers from B aimed at A, would also be effectively blue, right ?

Okay, so, light coming from an object that is moving, will vary in colour, depending if the object is moving away from, or towards the observer. So a star moving away from Earth will appear red, a star moving towards Earth will be blue. Here are two ships, A and B, and also two observers, 1 and 2. A and B are moving in the same direction, at the same speed. Top situation, A illuminates B with a yellow laser. Is it still yellow to B ? but red to observer 2 ? Bottom situation, B illuminates A with a yellow laser, Is it still yellow to A ? but blue to observer 1 ? Does it change if A and B are now moving at 0.1c ? If the ships are moving fast enough, and A suddenly slows down, then uses its yellow laser to warn B of something, does that risk B getting hit by X-Rays ?

This thread reminds me of the time when I had got a Mun mission into low orbit, and was accelerating to make the transfer, and I see something purple on screen that zips past, with closest approach being less than 1km or so. Was a satellite in an orbit going the opposite way, relative velocity to the Mun rocket must have been 5+ km/sec, lol.

I only want to see a surface refinery, and a mobile device. Surface refinery, to deploy onto Minmus, that uses electricity, to turn ice into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which can be used in liquid fuel engines. And a thing, developed from the asteroid grabber, to grab comets, and uses electricity to turn the ice into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so a spacecraft can refuel elsewhere than from Minmus. This would be a lot slower than the Minmus surface refinery. I'm not sure on the need in stock, for monopropellant and xenon gas fuels. I'm sure people could add them in mods, but I think if in stock, it's liquid fuel only, then it remains a challenge to build craft capable of visiting multiple bodies. Have to conserve limited RCS fuel, that sort of thing. being able to refuel the liquid fuel engines makes going outside Kerbin's sphere easier, but keeping it liquid fuel refueling only, stops it from becoming trivial. I think.