Where will Career Mode start

[Xarian]

Low speed, low-altitude planes are ridiculously easy to engineer. Much easier than a rocket designed to do anything useful (in other words, anything other than orbit as space debris).

[regex]

Low speed, low-altitude planes are ridiculously easy to engineer. Much easier than a rocket designed to do anything useful (in other words, anything other than orbit as space debris).

Actually, this is true. I'll definitely be doing my Kerbin-side research with small planes.

[Van Disaster]

Balloons are easier than any of them. That'd be a nice addition, actually.

[DerekL1963]

In RL, NASA started the same way. Beginning with National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). They operated out of places like Edwards Air Force Base...

In RL, NASA also inherited the Mercury program from the NACA and active rocketry/satellite programs from the Army's Redstone Arsenal and Naval Research Laboratory. (Plus a whole bunch of other odd bits and bobs.) That the whole reason that NASA was founded in the first place - to bring all these scattered bits and pieces under one roof.

Thus, there is no historical justification for a program that starts based on just planes if your equivalent start date is the founding of NASA.

[Stealth2668]

What does R&D mean?

[Pipcard]

What does R&D mean?

Research and Development.

[dudester28]

Let's note that the title of the game is Kerbal Space Program. I believe that in the beginning of career mode you should be able to launch a rocket into space. In the beginning, these rockets may only be able to achieve sub-orbital flights with probes but they are rockets nonetheless.

[The Destroyer]

I would love to start off early- testing on rovers new engines, then prop planes, then jets, then get fast as possible and then early rocketry. It's not THAT hard.

[Dweller_Benthos]

Looks like you start off with the small capsule, one rocket engine, the small SRB, a small fuel tank, a strut, parachute and antenna:

[magnemoe]

Planes, along with high altitude balloons, were in use for the early manned sub orbital flights. Certainly, the X-15 was orbital capable in its later stages, but was cancelled in favor of the Mercury program that used ICBM missiles as launchers. The lions share of the space program were sub orbital rockets that developed into orbital launching of satellites, then probes to beyond.

Yes, they was used and is still used for research at high attitude, however not suborbital or much higher than 40 km pretty much require an rocket engine.

X-15 could not reach orbit without putting it on top of an rocket, top speed still lack 18.000 km/h for orbital speed.

Now planes in KSP has one weakness over rockets, first they are harder to build, secondly they are far harder to fly and mostly land.

Main benefit of planes is that they make an SSTO easier.

[3_bit]

Well, with .22 presumably adding research and development, and we already have the astronaut complex, I'm sure even a simple mod could make a "career mode". All we need is a method of "purchasing" parts and hiring kerbals. I sure hope they get paid by the hour. Anyone up for a Mun lander that uses Mainsails? I also imagine more experienced kerbals might reduce those random explosions... except Jeb. The more experienced he is, the more likely your ship is to spontaneously combust.

[FITorion]

Looks like you start off with the small capsule, one rocket engine, the small SRB, a small fuel tank, a strut, parachute and antenna:

not a strut as we commonly use the term... (more struts!) but most likely it's the cubic octagonal strut or the modular girder segment.

Oh and this is basically what I had when I first started playing KSP... Take away the antenna and the structural part and then make it so fuel does not flow through intervening fuel tanks to the engine so that you have to attach every tank to an engine... and add a decoupler. That would pretty much replicate .13 when I started. (at least in terms of parts)

Speaking of which... I just noticed there is no decoupler in the starting parts... interesting.

Edited October 9, 2013 by FITorion

[crparris]

or parachutes and landing gear, lol.

oh god, the Kerbals we'll lose...

[Littlelion]

It's strange... If I understood well you get wings before wheels? So you can create planes, but you can't take of or land? And you have not any decuopler for a lot of time? Well mayby the first things doesn't cost very much and you can get it in 2 or 3 missions.

Sorry for the horrible English

[EvilotionCR2]

Let's just hope that they will change it and give us decoupler as one of the first parts.

[Dispatcher]

Perhaps we will be able to choose a career path, so to speak, depending on whether or not we wish to start with rockets or planes. Better yet, we could shift to making any kind of vehicle at any time; such as rockets, planes, rovers, boats, whatever.

[Wallace]

or parachutes and landing gear, lol.

oh god, the Kerbals we'll lose...

no, you get the baby parachute, that's enough to bring the mk1 capsule back down.

[Richy teh space man]

Maybe you could start by getting a Kerbal to push a science pod onto the grassy area near KSC, then near to the beach to get some science points..

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I think (hope) the KSP career mode would be a bit like the space race, but with Minmus mixed in, i.e, mun probe flyby, mun probe orbit, Minmus probe flyby, mun manned flyby, Minmus probe orbit, manned mun orbit, manned mun landing ect.

[FITorion]

Maybe you could start by getting a Kerbal to push a science pod onto the grassy area near KSC, then near to the beach to get some science points..

There's no "science parts" to start. You'll have to do "crew reports" I don't know if the Kerbal has to be in a command pod or not to do a crew report.

At least they give you an antenna for when you get a Kerbal stuck in orbit to relay the results back down.

... but then again they didn't give us batteries...

How is that going to work?

Well it's in testing now. Lets hope they get everything figured out.

[jpkerman]

I did a test with 1 capsule, 1 parachute, 1 antenna, 1 SRB and got up to 13KM with a flight path that arched the ship out over the ocean. The entire assembly successfully splashed down at 7.6 speed. If that qualifies for a first suborbital launch to advance the tech to the next level then the game could begin quite simply. If they want a 70KM goal then a larger assembly would be needed (that is too heavy for the basic chute) and the lack of a decoupler in the teaser screen shot could pose an interesting problem. That is if the starting parts have not been reworked. If a 'purchase' feature is included then at least the part cost must be addressed beyond the placeholder '999' cost of most stock parts.

[FITorion]

I also decided to do a test.

From the icons:

I think the tank is a FL-T200.

and the engine could either be LV-T30 (215 thrust) or LV-T45 (200 thrust). I picked the LV-T45 to play it safe.

test 1.

parachute, mark 1 pod, fuel tank, engine

results: 4km. I discovered the pods have batteries. landed at 10m/s. Pod intact.

test 2.

parachute, mark 1 pod, fuel tank, engine, Booster

results: didn't catch altitude. booster did not explode on second engine ignition. landed at 11m/s, pod intact.

test 3.

parachute, mark 1 pod, fuel tank, engine, Booster, Booster

results: 12km. first booster exploded as expected but only after second booster made it over heat. landed at 11m/s, pod intact.

This seems viable.

Factoring booster explosions as a method of staging I've managed to get to 29.8km so far. That seems my limit... more boosters only make it less stable.

Tried with just the engine and a bunch of tanks... like 10... orbit is possible with the starting parts.

Edited October 10, 2013 by FITorion

[Warmblood]

Firstly, experimenting with random stuff in KSP is half the fun, so while we're waiting I'd encourage everyone to go out and play with the starting parts! And if you don't want pre-tested answers, stop reading!

But... Since we're sharing results, here's mine. I found a pod+SRB+SRB to be a good way to get to about 120k above Kerbin. Nowhere near orbital, but depending on parameters it could be sufficient for early space experiments. (like an early Mercury mission.) The trick is activating the 2nd srb while the first is almost out of fuel, but still burning. This lets it overheat quickly and blow itself up.

For orbital flight, the best seems to be a pod and 8-9 FLT-200's using an LV-T30. Control is not an issue, the pod torque is plenty enough. For me, 8 tanks was so close to being an ideal fuel load. My 8 tank craft made exactly one orbit, but fuel is incredibly marginal. Maybe a little fine tuning would help, but there is just hardly any safety margin. 9 tanks is pretty safe, and is just about perfect for the T30 to lift. Orbit with about 20 units of fuel to spare. There is a question about whether the engine is a T30 or a T45. A T45 might change results a little due to extra weight.

On a cost basis (for what's that worth), I believe the 1st option is the most efficient to outside of atmosphere, while the 2nd is best for orbit. I tried some SRB/Liquid hybrids, but without decouplers they are a bit weird and inefficient.

[Urban_K]

... the lack of a decoupler in the teaser screen shot could pose an interesting problem.

One sort of solution:

[DevoidLight]

10 bucks says Scott Manley lands on another planet and returns with the first level parts.