For Science! - what was not announced or mentioned

[Vl3d]

I did not really see or hear anything about a KerbNet mechanism which would allow real-time and on-rails scanning of CB surfaces. Also is there any information about telescopes and if the Exploration mode will start with undiscovered celestial bodies in the Kerbol system? Nothing about the buoyancy system? Do we have any clarification if probe exploration before manned has been set as a priority? What else did you expect to be included in the For Science! update and was not announced or mentioned?

Edited October 24, 2023 by Gargamel
Added unlock timer

[Scarecrow71]

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

I did not really see or hear anything about a KerbNet mechanism which would allow real-time and on-rails scanning of CB surfaces. Also is there any information about telescopes and if the Exploration mode will start with undiscovered celestial bodies in the Kerbol system? What else did you expect to be included in the For Science! update and was not announced or mentioned?

I was really hoping for telescopes and the whole "you need to image celestial bodies before you go there" mechanic.  I am still hoping that they eventually add that.

[Guest]

I thought discovery with telescopes was only for interstellar? It would feel a bit weird if I had to use a telescope to go to Duna, you can see it from the ground without one!

To answer your question, I didn’t have any specific expectations so, well, nothing. I do expect gameplay to be generally more involving than in KSP1, but we’ll only find out if that’s true when they release it!

CommNet would be nice though

[Guest]

The idea that I'd have to use a telescope first before I could do a launch to Duna or Eve when Kepler had figured out the very-weird-looking-from-Earth orbit of Mars in like, 1600 AD, is downright stupid.

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, regex said:

The idea that I'd have to use a telescope first before I could do a launch to Duna or Eve when Kepler had figured out the very-weird-looking-from-Earth orbit of Mars in like, 1600 AD, is downright stupid.

But did he do it without a telescope?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

But did he do it without a telescope?

He actually did use a telescope. 350-ish years years before someone decided to try launching a rocket to Mars.

Edited October 24, 2023 by regex

[WelshSteW]

52 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I did not really see or hear anything about a KerbNet mechanism which would allow real-time and on-rails scanning of CB surfaces. Also is there any information about telescopes and if the Exploration mode will start with undiscovered celestial bodies in the Kerbol system? Nothing about the buoyancy system? Do we have any clarification if probe exploration before manned has been set as a priority? What else did you expect to be included in the For Science! update and was not announced or mentioned?

 

Nothing about buoyancy, but 'Aquatic Sciences' is in the 4th tier of the tech tree.

 

As for probes before manned, I'm not sure. 'Probes' are quite early in the tech tree, but 'Autonomous Sampling' isn't until tier 2.

 

[Kerbart]

10 minutes ago, regex said:

He actually did use a telescope. 350-ish years years before someone decided to try launching a rocket to Mars.

Yes, but I think that was after he published his most famous work. Also, a lot of the work was based on observations by Tycho Brahe who definitely did not use a telescope. That doesn't mean they didn't use instruments but the orbits of the known planets were established without the use of telescopes.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

Yes, but I think that was after he published his most famous work. Also, a lot of the work was based on observations by Tycho Brahe who definitely did not use a telescope. That doesn't mean they didn't use instruments but the orbits of the known planets were established without the use of telescopes.

Excellent. Kind of drives home the point that I shouldn't have to use a frickin' telescope of all things to send a mission to another planet.

[GobboKirk]

Telescopes in KSP never even crossed my mind, but now I want one

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Excellent. Kind of drives home the point that I shouldn't have to use a frickin' telescope of all things to send a mission to another planet.

Because...reasons?  I don't understand why people are so against having to use a telescope to see images of a planet you want to go to.  Why?  Is it time taken to get one set up?  Is it a repetetive thing (much like taking temperature or air pressure would be in every new campaign)?  Do you just think it's stupid without having a real reason other than you don't like it?

Also, why is it ok for some people to want things like extended Kerbalism or Science mini-games, but wanting telescopes is somehow bad?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Because...reasons?  I don't understand why people are so against having to use a telescope to see images of a planet you want to go to.  Why?  Is it time taken to get one set up?  Is it a repetetive thing (much like taking temperature or air pressure would be in every new campaign)?  Do you just think it's stupid without having a real reason other than you don't like it?

Also, why is it ok for some people to want things like extended Kerbalism or Science mini-games, but wanting telescopes is somehow bad?

Because we didn't need telescopes to actually figure out orbital mechanics some 350-ish years before we actually applied them. Because seeing something in greater clarity doesn't matter when it comes to plotting a course to it in space navigation. Because it's artificial gating that makes zero actual sense. Because it would get extremely repetitive on a second and subsequent playthrough.

Science mini-games are at least fun and serve a useful purpose.

[shdwlrd]

10 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I don't understand why people are so against having to use a telescope to see images of a planet you want to go to.

It depends on the reasoning for the telescope. If you need a telescope to discover a planet in your solar system, that's stupid. You should see the planet transiting across the night sky. You know it's there. If you want to use the telescope to get a better view of the planet, that's cool. If you want to use a telescope to do a ground survey before a mission, that's up to you. But using telescopes for anything in the Kerbol system should be optional and not a requirement for any discoveries.

[Scarecrow71]

14 minutes ago, regex said:

Because it would get extremely repetitive on a second and subsequent playthrough.

Science mini-games are at least fun and serve a useful purpose.

Ok, so I challenge you then to prove that these are fun and not repetitive.  How is playing the same mini-game over and over every time I want to collect science better or more fun or less repetitive than having to take 1 image of a planet?  Better yet, how is it not repetitive to have to collect the same science over and over on subsequent playthroughs, but it would be with a telescope?

Edited October 24, 2023 by Scarecrow71

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Also, why is it ok for some people to want things like extended Kerbalism or Science mini-games, but wanting telescopes is somehow bad?

I don’t think that’s bad either! We just disagree about things and that’s OK!

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Ok, so I challenge you then to prove that these are fun and not repetitive.  How is playing the same mini-game over and over every time I want to collect science better or more fun or less repetitive than having to take 1 image of a planet?  Better yet, how is it not repetitive to have to collect the same science over and over on subsequent playthroughs, but it would be with a telescope?

Because mini-games don't represent blatantly artificial gating that makes zero actual sense.

Edited October 24, 2023 by regex

[cocoscacao]

6 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Ok, so I challenge you then to prove that these are fun and not repetitive.  How is playing the same mini-game over and over every time I want to collect science better or more fun or less repetitive than having to take 1 image of a planet?  Better yet, how is it not repetitive to have to collect the same science over and over on subsequent playthroughs?

Uhm, I'll take a different perspective. You send a telescope into orbit... then what? There's a dedicated take-a-pic button? Dunno, collecting science at least requires you to reach a specific spot (and back). Reaching orbit is mostly a chore. Scanning ground from up-close is okay. Scanning the sky with multiple telescopes in various orbits for outerstellar also makes sense.

It would make more sense to use scopes for asteroid captures, if that will still be a thing. I never attempted that in the original.

[Scarecrow71]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Because mini-games don't represent blatantly artificial gating that makes zero actual sense.

You haven't answered, though, why you think it's artificial gating OR why it makes zero sense.  If you are simply talking about not needing them in the Kerbolar system, then yes, I can concede that you wouldn't need them there.  But interstellar?  Is it artificial gating or senseless to need them then?

5 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

You send a telescope into orbit

I never stated you needed to send them into orbit.  I mean, you could, like JWST or Hubble.  But places like ANTARES or Apollo are ground-based.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You haven't answered, though, why you think it's artificial gating OR why it makes zero sense.

I actually have, you're just apparently not willing to read it. Scroll back a bit.

[Scarecrow71]

13 minutes ago, regex said:

I actually have, you're just apparently not willing to read it. Scroll back a bit.

No, you actually haven't.  You stated:

47 minutes ago, regex said:

Because we didn't need telescopes to actually figure out orbital mechanics some 350-ish years before we actually applied them. Because seeing something in greater clarity doesn't matter when it comes to plotting a course to it in space navigation. Because it's artificial gating that makes zero actual sense. Because it would get extremely repetitive on a second and subsequent playthrough.

Science mini-games are at least fun and serve a useful purpose.

You have yet to indicate why you think the mini-games are fun and serve a purpose while not being repetitive, all while detailing why telescopes are boring and don't serve a purpose while being repetitive.  You have yet to indicate why you think it's artificial gating.  I conceded that yes, in the Kerbolar system, we probably wouldn't need them.  But you didn't explain yourself to the points I'm asking about.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You have yet to indicate why you think the mini-games are fun

Because "click button -> receive payout" is boring while actually doing something is fun. For that matter, putting a satellite into orbit and waiting isn't what I'd call a "mini-game", something like KSP Interstellar's seismic experiment where you have to crash something into the planet after setting up the experiment was interesting.

10 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You have yet to indicate why you think it's artificial gating.

Because it serves no purpose beyond preventing the player from doing what they should be allowed to do if they have enough delta-V. If I have enough delta-V to make it to Duna and I line up my exit maneuver at the right time and place, I should absolutely be able to make that transfer. Telling me I can't because I haven't, what, looked at the planet in greater detail even though I know its orbital parameters, and should have known those orbital parameters literally hundreds of years before my space program was even conceived, is artificial gating.

I'm just repeating myself at this point.

14 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I conceded that yes, in the Kerbolar system, we probably wouldn't need them.

Then there's nothing left to talk about.

[cocoscacao]

24 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You have yet to indicate why you think the mini-games are fun and serve a purpose while not being repetitive

Everything eventually does. That's why some people perform seppuku every once in a while...

43 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I never stated you needed to send them into orbit.  I mean, you could, like JWST or Hubble.  But places like ANTARES or Apollo are ground-based

Ok, now you lost me. Where's a gameplay there? How would that look like? Sending something sensitive into orbit may be a good gameplay, if you had some constraints. Don't go over n G-force or something. How do you envision telescopes than? We already have tracking station... Simply entering it and pushing a button there seems kinda pointless.

Edited October 24, 2023 by cocoscacao
Exceptionally bad use of punctuation

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 hours ago, regex said:

The idea that I'd have to use a telescope first before I could do a launch to Duna or Eve when Kepler had figured out the very-weird-looking-from-Earth orbit of Mars in like, 1600 AD, is downright stupid.

The hardcore spaceflight history nerds will point out things like this: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2021/06/engineer-special-study-of-moon-1960-1961.html?m=1

IRL, telescopic studies were fundamental in the early days of the space program.  They were all we had to go on.  And look at New Horizons and Pluto.

My bet is that scopes are going to be needed to scope out Debdeb and its successors in Interstellar, but they might have an early game role too…  That observatory dome on the R&D building is probably there for a reason.  A fog of game in the Tracking station until you’ve first observed the planets with better scopes, then flybys, then orbiters, would be great.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The hardcore spaceflight history nerds will point out things like this: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2021/06/engineer-special-study-of-moon-1960-1961.html?m=1

IRL, telescopic studies were fundamental in the early days of the space program.  They were all we had to go on.  And look at New Horizons and Pluto.

I am talking about gating my delta-V expenditures behind what seems to be either a "click->receive" or "put it into orbit and wait" mechanic, not gathering science.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 hours ago, regex said:

He actually did use a telescope. 350-ish years years before someone decided to try launching a rocket to Mars.

To be fair to the entire planetary astronomy field since, NASA and the Soviets didn’t use Kepler’s numbers…  Ground-based scopes can give you orbits, size, things like colours, and surface features on the Moon.  Farther out, you can see the presence of things like Jovian cloud bands, the Galilean satellites, and Saturn’s rings.  Nothing like the kind of detail you can get from actually putting the smaller telescopes on flybys and orbiters closer to the CB.  Then again, Kerbals are more risk tolerant than humans :).

4 minutes ago, regex said:

I am talking about gating my delta-V expenditures behind what seems to be either a "click->receive" or "put it into orbit and wait" mechanic, not gathering science.

That would be silly of the devs.  I’d be surprised if they hid something as basic behind a telescope requirement.