Is it "moral" to leave kerbals on a planet?

[ToukieToucan]

 

29 minutes ago, Evanitis said:

I'd be glad too.

 

RIP Evanitis, a brave hero who sacrificed himself in name of science and capitalism... He earned well...

[Skorpychan]

To my mind, no. It isn't. NOBODY goes ANYWHERE without the intention of retrieval.

Jeb may have been stuck on Duna for months, but he's experienced no subjective time. I will get a resupply out to him for his return trip. It'll take months, but I will get it there.

Of course, that doesn't apply to equipment, so all the fuel tanks and stages will be re-used. Sometime.

[ToukieToucan]

So far the furthest a kerbal has gone was in an escape trajectory in Minmus, but my goal is to land on Minmus and back I will probably need multiple vessels and I'll do a Gemini-ish project.

[RizzoTheRat]

How much weight do you need to carry with TAC-LS to survive say a 20 day mission with 2 kerbals?  I had a go with USI-LS last night in a new game and got as far as sending Jeb to do a Mun flyby, but it didn't need much in the way of supplies (one container about the size of a Goo pod)  Thinking of switching to TAC-LS tonight as that looks harder and seeing how Mun and Minimus missions go.

In TAC-LS they can go a few days without food or water but only a couple of hours without oxygen or electricity, so the lander only needs to carry oxygen (if that, but it's nice to have a backup plan), the rest of the supplies can stay in orbit.  Mun mission time is shorter than Minimums so I'd suggest a couple of Mun landings first to get enough science to unlock some better parts (deployable solar panels, maybe nuke engine) before trying for Minimus.

[ToukieToucan]

21 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

How much weight do you need to carry with TAC-LS to survive say a 20 day mission with 2 kerbals?  I had a go with USI-LS last night in a new game and got as far as sending Jeb to do a Mun flyby, but it didn't need much in the way of supplies (one container about the size of a Goo pod)  Thinking of switching to TAC-LS tonight as that looks harder and seeing how Mun and Minimus missions go.

In TAC-LS they can go a few days without food or water but only a couple of hours without oxygen or electricity, so the lander only needs to carry oxygen (if that, but it's nice to have a backup plan), the rest of the supplies can stay in orbit.  Mun mission time is shorter than Minimums so I'd suggest a couple of Mun landings first to get enough science to unlock some better parts (deployable solar panels, maybe nuke engine) before trying for Minimus.

Im not sure if one medium tank for 1 kerbal was 30 days or 300, both enough for a return journey though.

[Frank_G]

I never leave a Kerbal behind. In fact, the rescue missions i launched to retrieve stranded crew were among the most fun and challenging ones. Bring them home!

Edited January 20, 2016 by Frank_G

[Jhawk1099]

On 1/19/2016 at 6:27 AM, ToukieToucan said:

Interesting, though how do I semi precisely land near a target? Mostly the shown trajectory shown doesn't take the rotation of the planet in account. 

One thing that always gets me while landing is I forget to switch the nav ball from orbital to surface. So yeah don't forget to do that. It will make your landing a bit less precise

[Jimbodiah]

Why install RemoteTech and TAC then in the first place? The whole point of TAC is to plan ahead and resupply if needed. If you will just let them die, then what is the point of having the mod?

 

Btw: outposts need to accomodate x-number of kerbals, you don't need to have them actually on there unless the contract states "have three pilots" etc. Most of my "outposts" are just my lander that holds 6 kerbals, has an antenna and a docking port, so I complete those contracts together with landing tourists on the Mun/Minmus. No need to leave anyone behind.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[gogozerg]

When I have to leave Kerbals on a planet, I always tell them that one day they will return.

Give them hope at least.

 

And I always keep my promises, even if Jebediah once had to survive for 50 years on Eve.

[Jimbodiah]

GHeghe    Wilsooonnn!!!  

[Mister Dilsby]

Hello. Please read this before you decide to leave anyone behind.

[katateochi]

On 19/01/2016 at 0:42 PM, Evanitis said:

But money? Money is good, useful, and will bring progress to your space program. They will understand.

well, morality and kumanity aside this is a valid argument if you regard Kerbals as little more than a resource.....BUT don't forget that they're actually a very expensive resource, especially if you've hired them, but even if you get all your new recruits from rescue contracts, they still represent an investment in time that you spent rescuing them.  So, do the gains of the mission really outweigh the costs (in funds, rep and time) of losing them?

Anyway, I think the game is much more enjoyable if you care so much about the survival of your Kerbals that it annoys your SO!! (although that might be another cost to factor in).

[Jimbodiah]

Kethane has a part that turns Kerbals into Kethane... Just sayin'.

[Evanitis]

I can't argue about Kerbals being expensive... and when playing career I'm very deeply concerned about the survival of my precious high-level engineers. Initially scientists too. But I wouldn't mind sending pilots for risky endeavours, especially after the invention of probe cores.

 

About playstyles... to each of their own. IRL I'm the nicest person ever who only wishes the best, even to his worst enemies. I melt when I see puppies and can't look when someone gets an injection, even on TV. But gaming-wise, I socialized on Dungeon Keeper and sometimes feel like slapping underpreforming kerbals while threathening them with the torture chamber. Guess that's the very reason for me to not use life support mods. The fact that I prefer a ballpark mission-design and that I don't mind reprioritizing their survival return-trip if something doesn't go according to plan makes space dangerous enough for my minions Kerbals.

 

Not that wanted to promote that mentality. I'm only mentioning it to invoke a smile on readers. From a gameplay perspective, Jimbodiah already gave the perfect answer:

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

If you will just let them die, then what is the point of having the mod?

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Evanitis

[Levelord]

As long as the oxygen and snacks are infinite in supply, Kerbals appear quite happy being on a strange planet.

[Jimbodiah]

Kerbals aren't the brightest bunch. I think they would be smiling even though they are headed straight into the sun. "Look, ooooh, shiny!".

Edited January 20, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[KerBlammo]

1 hour ago, Evanitis said:

But gaming-wise, I socialized on Dungeon Keeper and sometimes feel like slapping underpreforming kerbals while threathening them with the torture chamber. 

 

At least Kerbals don't demand cable.

[LordKael]

There are so many options for extending the LS that there should never be a reason to kill/strand a kerbal.

[MarvinKitFox]

On 2016/01/19 at 2:28 PM, ToukieToucan said:

Should I let kerbals freeze/starve to death for a big lump of money or should I be "moral"?

Well, abandoning your Kerbals like that is more "moral" than grinding up babies to make toothpaste, but only very slightly.

 

Unless you include Jebediah as one of the victims, in which case the toothpaste idea starts looking good.

 

 

*translation:  Not on your nelly! How DARE you even consider abandoning them!

[ToukieToucan]

1 hour ago, MarvinKitFox said:

Well, abandoning your Kerbals like that is more "moral" than grinding up babies to make toothpaste, but only very slightly.

 

Unless you include Jebediah as one of the victims, in which case the toothpaste idea starts looking good.

 

 

*translation:  Not on your nelly! How DARE you even consider abandoning them!

Rational thinking goes off in times of distress for easy money.

[waterlubber]

Yes, it is moral, but it's also cheating. ^/s

 

If you want to live with the guilt, then it's fine. Kerbals like planets. I leave white suits in random places all the time!

[MatttheCzar]

I always leave a suicide measure on trips to Eve, just in case.  And for those missions i take the people with maxed out stupidity or bravery, and roll dice to determine who goes on eve missions.  I feel only slightly better.

[Mastikator]

Kerbalnauts are very expensive, I've found that it's almost always cheaper to bring them home than to let them die and replace them. Especially on the Mun or Minimus. Maybe like Moho might be cheaper to let them die but then why even bother sending them?

[Overland]

......... Im sorry.. The truth must come out

 

See the mun..and how its made of dust and full of holes? And how kerbals turn to the same grey dust when they die?

 

YOU MADE THE MUN!

You monster!!

Edited January 21, 2016 by Overland

[RizzoTheRat]

See this is another area where the realism falls down in KSP.  In the real world the moon is made of cheese so anyone stranded there would be fine...or at least until they died of cholesterol related heart problems.  I saw it on Wallace and Grommit, it must be true https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0qagA4_eVQ  Just don't forget to resupply him with crackers every few months.

 

I'm trying to decide between TAC-LS and USI-LS at the moment, so did a mun landing with TAC in my new game last night.  Turned out I didn't even need to carry any supplies as the 3 days worth in the Mk1 capsule was fine, so one of the little hex pods should more than enough for a Minimus mission.  Leave no Kerbal behind!