Do you have any "moral' rules?

[Corona688]

3 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Liquid oxygen is harmless, unless it sets you on fire.

Of course it's an explosion and flammability hazard.  We're talking rocket fuels, what did you expect?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Corona688

[Corona688]

 

19 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Guys working with UDMH.  Do you think all that is so they don't eat it?

More probably because it's toxic at milligram levels.  I did my research, you know.  Killed an afternoon on it.  You caught my interest.

But you keep mixing different types of hazard.  Nuclear is okay because it's less dangerous to the pilot, but UDMH is bad because it's bad for the environment to make?  What?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Corona688

[Mike Mars]

I am totally immoral.

What happens on the Mun, stays on the Mun.

MM

[IWanttobeEVA]

No one way or suicide missions, and resuce stranded Kerbalnauts. 

But other than that no rules. 

I leave derbies everywhere and anywhere of all types if it buys a couple extra dV and saves a few Funds during the mission. I do try to return with science instruments as these tend to be expensive so some funds can be recovered, but that's not an ethics consideration. 

And I have no problems sending a Kerbal on a multi-year long mission in a MkI capsule. If you didn't want to be in the program... 

 

[RocketSquid]

No kerbal gets left behind.

Any mission going past LKO is either autonomous or has at least two kerbals. Anything leaving the kerbin SOI is either autonomous or has a crew of at least four.

Crew rotation is assumed to happen behind the scenes. Kerbals are assumed to photosynthesize during long flights.

I will never sink to the level of using lander cans for reentry. Never. External seats on the other hand...

Hyperedit is only acceptable in the cases of actual game errors, or after flying at least two missions with the same parameters.

Kerbals can't get cancer and don't fear radiation.

Communications are always good due to a massive network of comsats and probes, at least until you get out past dres.

No dedicated biome hoppers.

Don't sacrifice function for aesthetics. Don't sacrifice aesthetics just to shave off a little weight.

[Van Disaster]

I don't clip fuel tanks inside other fuel containers. I don't leave kerbals anywhere, but that's fairly pragmatic anyway because they were quite expensive in the first place and my program is 95% reusable. I'll give crew decent living space on long trips because why not.

LV-Ns are fine in atmo, they're closed cycle. I'd probably use Orion anyway just for the fun of it.

[322997am]

For every dead kerbal, there must be a survivor.

 

[Guest]

Kerballed missions are run with the expectation of being able to return or reach a permanent installation, and crew should be at least 2 for anything further out than near-Kerbin asteroids.

What I would consider capital ships should have a crew of at least 4-6 (mostly engineers) and a larger than strictly necessary habitation module.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Guest

[Fearless Son]

19 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Monoprop is probably hydrazine, toxic as hell in person but so reactive it doesn't stick around when spilled.  It reacts -- explosively or not -- with oxygen to produce nothing more complicated than pure nitrogen and pure water.  It's too simple to have any complicated products, so it's what they call a "non-cumulative poison".

When used without oxygen as monoprop, the worst thing you get is ammonia.  You know -- fertilizer.

Just be very careful about the oxygen content of the medium you are burning it in:

[Terwin]

Do not kill/strand kerbals(all pilots and probe cores receive rigorous (mostly) off-screen training so that the program does not lose any astronauts) 

Collect any reasonably accessible kerbals that were stranded by others(I generally ignore +pod(landed) rescues because it is not worth the hassle of collecting a landed pod, same with any rescue from Kerbol orbit or planets where I do not have a presence or mission en-route)

Aside from early career, I always have gender balanced crew and extra living space for any mission that passes Munar orbit.

Any manned mission that leaves the Kerbin SOI should have ISRU on board, and if it is going more than a few KM outside the kerbin SOI it should have multiple years worth of supplies(USI-LS, but with habitation disabled)

Leave no science behind.(MPLs experiment storage helps greatly with this)

[Guest]

I used to freely kill Kerbals, but now whenever I'm in a serious save, I'll do anything to keep them alive, and bring them home.  I do have my "screwing around" saves in which I freely kill a bunch of them wile doing stupid stuff.

[Mjarf]

Always bring at least 3 different flavors of snacks.

[Brownhair2]

Another rule of mine: permanent planetary missions must have mining equipment. Otherwise you've stranded them on Eve and you're a monster.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Brownhair2
Can't mine in space

[Corona688]

More rules I've realized I'm following:

Never clip instruments, probe cores, or command pods.

It's okay to clip things inside simple, structural parts, anything you could conceivably drill a hole through and not destroy it, i.e.  clipping inside a nosecone.  Clipping through a service bay is also OK as long as you don't clip through the doors or block their range of motion.

Solar panel groups shouldn't clip through anything when extended, in any range of motion.  (I use the 1x6 a lot more than the 2x3!)

If you use bigger/faster communicators, still include a communotron-16, the big ones are fragile.

Dish antennas should point towards unobstructed space.

Never clip anything but the very outer parts of parachute packs.

 

[foamyesque]

On 2016-07-14 at 4:44 PM, Brownhair2 said:

Another rule of mine: permanent planetary missions must have mining equipment. Otherwise you've stranded them on Eve and you're a monster.

It's possible to land a fully fueled Eve return-to-orbit rocket. I think there's a guy out there who even managed an Eve SSTO from high altitude, which implies the possibility of a reuseable Eve shuttle. Which is crazy!

[dire]

I just landed a Minmus SSTO with no dropped parts -- up, land on Minmus, take off, straight shot to 45km over Kerbin. Lost a couple of bits in the de-orbit but overall it came through OK. I think I'd slap a couple of drop tanks on it for eve, detach them when I completed LKO and de-orbit the drop tanks, getting to eve and back all in one piece is a little too ambitious for me right now.

My rules:

1) No Kerbonaut shall be left behind. 

2) Waste not, want not.

3) Always bring a little extra fuel.

4) To clip is to invite the kraken. Beware its wrath.

5) 255 parts should be enough for anyone. I can build juggernauts in deep space, but beware the kraken.

6) Kerbonauts should have at least two of food, living space, and company.

7) Keep space clean; that debris should be recycled!

[Provisional Name 12]

Not sure I have rules as much as guidelines.

1) Don't cheat unless the game screws you. I usually don't do this anyway other than when rendezvous nodes don't move as expected and I find I wasted a tonne of fuel and need just a bit to make a return.

2) Killing kerbals is moderately discouraged

3) Don't delete space debris, it's wildly improbable but what if it caused an accident? That would be cool. Also try to reuse parts if you can, I know I dropped a fuel tank that had quite a bit left just orbiting Kerbin and ended up picking up the fuel after a bunch of rendezvous to keep the mission going. Though, nowadays I plan my rockets delta-V much better, but any craft parts that can be reused is good, I have left old mining vessels floating in space to be picked apart over time for parts. I often use a designation that isn't scrap for important debris I don't want to see disappear (put survey probes in same category to hide). Sometimes it's kinda cool to just look at all the debris and see where it is and where it's gone, see what stuff might be in other SOIs than it was left in.

4) I make minimalist living spaces, but now with UKI LS... that isn't really a possibility. I honestly don't know how I will manage to do a Eve science station.

5) Don't update until all your mods are compatible.

6) And finally I'll just do one more launch or, I'll just plan the ship out for this launch are totally legitimate ways to keep playing even if you are glued to it for hours and need to stop.

That said, I feel like the reason that asparagus staging is the norm in KSP and not in real life is not so much just because it is difficult to design properly. I am pretty sure you could setup a system that opened and closed gravity feed fuel from nacelles that could then be dropped and in the real world we don't have to deal with the mechanics of KSP or the limited shapes, form and size of parts available in the game. I also suspect that tracking the falling debris would get more problematic if you were dropping more of it much closer to your launching area.

[foamyesque]

There's a hugely distinct difference between crossfeeding or drop tanks as they exist IRL, and the daisy-chain of fuel lines that KSP asparagus staging requires. My rule for fuel lines is simple: One link max. No tanks feeding tanks feeding tanks.
 

 

[Provisional Name 12]

True, but at the same time this is just a technical limitation of the game that makes it impossible while the same physical outcome as asparagus staging could be achieved if you were allowed greater control, for example if you could control crossfeeding as a staging or action group. you could easily setup a staging that fed off 4 separate pairs of nacelles in order and dumped them as it switched to the others. So while I can appreciate that asparagus staging doesn't happen in real life, I feel like the possible equivalent alternatives being limited to you in the game makes it such that it is not really game-breaking to use. If there were a mod that would allow me to put crossfeeding into the staging I would seriously consider altering game play, however as it stands my opinion is that asparagus is just a way to work around several of the broken mechanics and artificial limitations of the game.

[pandaman]

I always endeavour to preserve  kerbaIs and get them home if not on a 'colonisation' mission.

I try to avoid debris in space, and deorbit it whenever possible if I do, otherwise it  has to stay and annoy me as my punishment.

I only allow myself to delete debris on the ground if there is a kerbal that could sensibly get to it to dispose of it.

[Vermil]

Once a long time ago, somebody accused me of being "too serious" and taking the fun out of the game - this was in EVE Online and I insisted on various things, basically that our corp & alliance should have its f*** act together - and I retorted that the case was the complete opposite: It's not fun if you don't do it seriously. Why should I even be interested?

I'm still like that. It's incomprehensible to me that I would conduct my space operations ad hoc, with no care for my Kerbal's lives and wellbeing. In my v1. game I haven't lost a single astronaut (not counting bugs and crashes). In my big, serious pre-v1. game I only lost one -Jebediah- once, and since it was the fault of the game, and not me, I immediately resurrected him with a F9.

I test painstakingly to take all flaws and any uncertainty out of the equation and make missions as safe as possible. All my long range missions have a minimum crew of three, and their spaceship has a big spacious habitat-module (improvised from structural parts or empty fuel tanks). I'm not going to put a lone Kerbal into a tiny can for many years of dark and cold solitude, far far away from home, just because it's lightweight and makes the rocket design easier.

To do it seriously is fun for me.

Testing costs a lot, so I would have a lot of problems playing career mode though.

As for how things are done in real-life, I couldn't care less. That sort of realism doesn't interest me. My engineers are Kerbals and abide by Kerbal physics and Kerbal technology.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Vermil

[foamyesque]

3 hours ago, SpaceCommunism said:

True, but at the same time this is just a technical limitation of the game that makes it impossible while the same physical outcome as asparagus staging could be achieved if you were allowed greater control, for example if you could control crossfeeding as a staging or action group. you could easily setup a staging that fed off 4 separate pairs of nacelles in order and dumped them as it switched to the others. So while I can appreciate that asparagus staging doesn't happen in real life, I feel like the possible equivalent alternatives being limited to you in the game makes it such that it is not really game-breaking to use. If there were a mod that would allow me to put crossfeeding into the staging I would seriously consider altering game play, however as it stands my opinion is that asparagus is just a way to work around several of the broken mechanics and artificial limitations of the game.

As a workaround for sequential drop tanks, I'm okay with that. If you've stuck engines on the bottom of those nacelles, it's lame.

[Provisional Name 12]

6 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

As a workaround for sequential drop tanks, I'm okay with that. If you've stuck engines on the bottom of those nacelles, it's lame.

There are probably certain ones that would and would not be possible, I think through some feet of engineering you could do it but would need to design the engines on the nacelles to consume much less fuel than the central thruster. But I've long past graduated from putting engines on nacelles, that's such a waste of thrusting power. I feel like condemning it within the limitations of stock would be absurd though.

[Corona688]

I've just started taking tourist missions and am considering this primary rule:  No reverting.  If a tourist is aboard, no reverting allowed.

Logically following from that, all tourist launching craft must have:

1. A survivable abort sequence in case of launchpad accident.
2. A rational re-entry arrangement:  Heat-shield, primary chute, backup chute, and drogue at minimum.
3. A center of mass & drag which keeps the heat shield centered without the help of a trained pilot.  (Stabilization is OK, 'retrograde hold' is not.)
4. The ability to survive a hard, shallow, unplanned re-entry.
5. 500+ power reserves, solar panels, and an emergency battery (locked, accessible via spacewalk).
6. An accessible exit.
7. A small amount of well-balanced RCS.
8. Something to stop the craft rolling downhill.  Bay doors will suffice.

That's just common sense, now the "fluff" which doesn't matter but makes me feel better:

1. Tourist craft must carry at least one KSP staff member.  If the craft lacks a probe core, they must be a pilot.
2. Tourist craft must have an antenna.
3. Tourists must be kept in friendly accommodations during flight:  Hitchhiker container, jetliner pod, etc.  They shouldn't need spacesuits indoors.
4. No tourists allowed in the command pod while in flight.  Keep away from the blinkenlights!

[Provisional Name 12]

Interesting @Corona688. I have thought about giving these types of rules serious considerations, basically because you cannot do a sort of hardcore mode since you can always be screwed by a bug or whatnot. My answer has been to install mods that make everything so hard that it isn't realistic to expect to be able to do that, but before hand I had considered the same thing.

What I am wondering is why are these rules only for tourism missions? Why not have rules like abort setups for all missions or coumphy acomodation for all crew traveling over long distances?