Manned Vs. unmanned missions

[Geschosskopf]

Not native to kerbin?

1. They have no spacesuits in vechicle asembly building (And the doors are open)

2. Eva reports on kerbin surface say that they think they would not need a spacesuit.

1. There's obviously SOMETHING between the interior of the VAB and the outside world, because the view shows clouds, which Kerbin doesn't have. Were it not for vehicles occasionally driving through the "door", the most obvious explanation is that it's just a jumbotron. But given the vehicles (which you'll note do not have open windows), this "something" in the "doorway" must be a forcefield, and the "clouds" are simply ripples in it.

2. But Kerbals are known to be highly stupid so a lot of what they say is a bad idea, or hallucinatory. For instance, when on Ike, they often report an imaginary object flying by.

[Ravenchant]

But Kerbals are known to be highly stupid so a lot of what they say is a bad idea, or hallucinatory. For instance, when on Ike, they often report an imaginary object flying by.

Hey, the magic boulder wasn't imaginary!

[Geschosskopf]

Time in space becomes a limited thing....

This is why I will never use a life support mod (even an acceptably Kerbal-esque one instead of humanocentric), and will figure a way to disable it should it ever make it into the official game.

I played what's currently called Orbiter for many years. Before that I played other very realistic space sims going back into the 1980s (some of which were also called "Orbiter" but were different games). These games had/have all the realism mechanics of actual rocketry: full-size solar system, life support, heat management, radiation, the questionable ability to restart rockets, having to stir fuel tanks periodically, random breakdowns, the works.

So I feel that I speak from considerably experience when I say that none of this stuff is any fun. At all. People play space games to set their imagination free, to seek out strange new worlds and all that. All this stuff comes between the player and his actual desire. Sure, it's interesting in teaching you what real space travel is like, but it turns the game into being more about managing the systems of the rocket instead of about flying it and going anywhere. You can't just sit back and enjoy the trip and the scenery because you're always having to fiddle with and worry about all these systems.

Furthermore, it's all quite disillusioning. This stuff shows you, in very stark terms sans sugar coating, just how futile it is to think about humanity ever doing anything meaningful in space. So, you want more uses for probes? Just add realism features to KSP and pretty soon you'll never be able to do anything except use probes, just like in real life.

It's the absence of all this stuff that makes me enjoy KSP so much. In KSP, I can just fly. Not only that, I can build all sorts of absurd contraptions that I know in real life would never work but which are lots of fun to play with. I laugh a lot when playing KSP or watching other people's videos. Believe me, there is nothing at all to ever laugh about in a realistic game like Orbiter. That's all stone sober and deadly serious.

Besides, how do we know KSP doesn't already have life support? Maybe it's all going on under the hood so we just don't have to worry about it? I find this totally acceptable. After all, I picture myself more as Captain Piccard than Neil Armstrong. Did Piccard ever sweat the details? Nope. He just sat back in his comfortable chair enjoying the view of his bigscreen monitor, and whenever he wanted to go somewhere, or somebody bothered him with a trivial detail like life support failure, he just said "make it so" and let his crew do all the work and worrying. That's what he paid them for, you know .

[r4pt0r]

i think they will have tiny life support pods like rcs that deplete over time, or the option of a hitchhiker or bigger sized pod that generates food in space. like a space food grower thingy.

[Iridium616]

Kerbals are capable of doing more complex tasks, and that's why they're the only ones able to do certain things. But unmanned has the avantage of a low mass, and no-one gets damaged if you fail.

Yes, manned missions are capable of doing more things. But that is realistic. In fact, for most times, you don't need all that fancy stuff on unmanned missions. That is, unless your rover's wheels break. But you have F5 for that, go and try a better landing again.

[michaelhester07]

I wish I could add a camera/radar assembly module to a probe. Make it so that would be able to produce the same data as a crew report would. So far the only probe I have that actually feels like a real probe is the kethane scanner probe I have in orbit of Mun and I had to get a mod to make it.

Wishlist of probe capable parts:

Camera -crew reports : what idiot builds a probe that can't get a decent look at what they shot it at. Even Voyager had a camera.

Thermal Camera -temperature reports from orbit... lets me get the 40% transmission value without landing: It would be like the thermal satellites we have now.

Radar mapper - Scan the surface to generate a topographical map which lets me identify the biomes and identify safe landing spots (flat spots). : Rather than fly blind and hope for the best which usually results in me splattering a kerbal across the landscape I want to be able to identify a safe place to touch down.

Resource detectors: Generate 1 science point per scan node (like the kethane scanner) on a planet when it successfully finds a resource. Could be labeled as a spectrometer.

- water : gotta find this for a sustainable base

- oxygen : if the planet or moon has this I can generate breathing air for the Kerbals

- metals : If I want to do any construction on the object without having to ship all the materials from Kerbal.

- Helium 3 or Kethane: generating fuel on the surface

- Atmospheric composition sensor: What if Duna had an oxygen envrionment? I don't know since I can't tell what the atmosphere is composed of. This one would require entering the atmosphere to find out. Some small amount of science from this.

- Surface sample analysis kit: Similar to what the Curiosity rover has on it this would allow a probe or unmanned rover to take surface samples. It would use the same science pool as a kerbal taking a surface sample.

This equipment is on real life probes to gather information. The information they gather lets us determine if and where we could put a moon base. Such a base would allow easier construction of vessels to other planets. I would even assume in 2001: A Space Odyssey that they would have had a moon base where they built the Discovery as launching all of that into orbit would be really expensive.

It's interesting that KSP could become research into ways to get into the deeper corners of the solar system

[Maxwell Fern]

I like your ideas, but they would just make probes a super-science module you should add to your manned mission for best results.

[Wachman]

I think an fairly easy and simple first pass at a life support addition would be to simply make the system require a small but constant draw of electricity to operate. No available electricity to the capsule, sorry, not going to be able to do anything. (No wanting to be morbid I think if a capsule somehow regained electricity then everything would work). This would make early career flights very time dependent until batteries and solar panels are discovered. Bases and deep space flights would need to make sure they had enough electricity to power themselves through the long nights. You could even make a new generator part that used rocket fuel to produce electricity.

[Sirrobert]

I wish I could add a camera/radar assembly module to a probe. Make it so that would be able to produce the same data as a crew report would. So far the only probe I have that actually feels like a real probe is the kethane scanner probe I have in orbit of Mun and I had to get a mod to make it.

Than why the hell would anyone ever send Kerbals?

This is a game about sending Kerbals to space. There are also probes. Let's keep it that way

[regex]

I do my best to only send manned flights and I also play with life support (which I really hope we see in KSP at some point). Sending probes is boring, easy, and will probably be the cheapest way to do things in career. I only use them for refueling missions (fuel or life support).

I also don't get why people are so afraid of life support since it's just another form of fuel. I'm sure the devs will abstract it enough to make it simple but meaningful when it comes around.

[Geschosskopf]

I also don't get why people are so afraid of life support since it's just another form of fuel. I'm sure the devs will abstract it enough to make it simple but meaningful when it comes around.

You totally misunderstand. If I was afraid of all the harsh realties of space travel, I wouldn't have played Orbiter and its predecessors for so many decades. In fact, I still play them periodically. All KSPers should, especially those who want to turn KSP into "Orbiter Lite", because it would slap some sense into them about the important differences between games and simulations.

KSP is a game. It's all about fun, it's all about silliness, with just enough actual rocket science draped over it to set the mood. This is what makes it such a brilliant success. Orbiter is a simulation that's all about harsh reality. It gives a sense of satisfaction from meeting the challenges it imposes, but it's the same sort of challenge as learning how to cope with your normal life and all bodily needs with 1 arm in a huge cast. Yes, you're proud of being able to do it and thus maintain your independence, but you can't wait for the cast to come off. Which is exactly how I felt when I discovered KSP have such a long time in the cast of Orbiter.

Seriously, sims and games don't mix. All adding sim elements to a game does is make it a crappy excuse for a simulation and a less-enjoyable game.

[regex]

"Orbiter Lite"

You totally misunderstand. I never said anything about "Orbiter Lite", I said something about life support just being another resource. And that's what it is. See, I've never played Orbiter and I probably never will, but the challenge of managing another resource is very much something I enjoy. Hell, I'd even be cool with managing Kerbal psychological states; it'd add more complexity to a very simple game. Your problem is that you see "life support" and get all "Orbiter" up in here instead of looking at what's available, none of which is anything like realism aside from Kerbals dying from lack of something (hey, they die from lack of fuel, lol).

I play with life support now and I don't feel like it detracts from the game at all, whether in adding extra complexity or whatever; it just gives me something else to do. That's what I hope to see from stock KSP. More risk, a tiny bit more management (really, if you think any of the current LS offerings are too complex or that the devs will offer even more complexity, well, I pity you), and maybe some additional complexity just add that little extra something to make the game more meaningful.

[illusori]

I'm with regex on this one, life support is just another fuel/electricity type constraint. We already juggle those factors in our rocket designs, there's no overwhelming gameplay burden to adding a new one.

It does however give an important trade off between kerballed and unkerballed exploration, just like RCS or SAS or any other module for that matter: you'll use it for the situations where it's advantageous, and won't use it in the situations where it's disadvantageous... and deciding what those situations are... well that's what a game is: a series of meaningful and interesting (and fun) decisions.

[Doctadeth]

Me, I'm with Geschosskopf. I don't see why having life support is a good thing in the vanilla career. If you want something realistic, try a real time game to the moon, or to orbit without warping. Takes a good solid ten minutes. I don't want a simulator, I want an arcade game, a bit of fun. Not worrying about kerbals dying from lack of life support. Not worrying about whether or not you packed enough support for your stranded kerbal on the moon.

If it did happen, make an option to disable it.

[illusori]

There's a world of difference between adding different strategic choices during the design stage of building a rocket and micromanagement chores like twiddling your thumbs as you wait around in realtime or pressing a button every 5 minutes to tell your kerbals to eat (or every two seconds to breathe). Arguing that they're equivalent is a straw man argument.

Adding another design constraint really is no different to fuel or power constraints, just with different parameters. I'm sure there'd be an "infinite life support" console flag like infinite fuel, or a mod for it. I don't care if you press that button, you have my permission for whatever it's worth.

This isn't about realism, it's about the gameplay goal of making robotic exploration meaningfully different from kerballed. If meeting that goal happens to add an additional veneer of realism, that's great, but it's not the point.

[Rastaman]

Seriously, sims and games don't mix. All adding sim elements to a game does is make it a crappy excuse for a simulation and a less-enjoyable game.

What you call "sims" and games are one and the same, no offense.

Orbiter is an arcade game compared to real life simulation software or cockpit simulators. The main source of its "complexity" is a less accessible but functionally equivalent maneuver node UI. IIRC Orbiter doesn't have life support out of the box either.

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. No life support eh what excuse me.

[ArmchairGravy]

Lol, do I need to post my rant from the aerodynamics forum here as well?

There is a way to have life support in the game already for those who wish to have that level of challenge. Install IonForge. There. Now you have your layer of extra challenge, and the rest of us can continue having fun without it.

[Highlad]

I agree that there is no real incentive to send out unmanned missions.

However:

I was circularising around the mun when I ran out of fuel. Plummeting to his seemingly inevitable demise, Jebidiah hopped out of his command pod and finished the burn on his EVA Propellant. Stranded in munar orbit, Jeb was waiting for rescue.

So, I put together a ship which had a command pod and a probe core. The command pod was empty so Jeb could hop in.

And it worked! (the second time... bill stole the seat the first time)

So, there you have it, unmanned missions can be very useful.

[Luckless]

Without life support and without limited Kerbals, then unmanned flights are a joke.

If we add limited life support, then we need a few more tools added to the game, namely an orbit and mission planner so that users can easily step ahead and back in 'time' for their game and pre-plan their maneuver nodes for a given mission so they can generate their delta-v and time requirements before building a rocket. In my view this would greatly reduce the frustration of the game, especially for newer players (Because lets face it, it sucks a lot to get out to Jool and then find you're short 5Dv to do what you wanted), and be able to base your mission requirements off that.

Plus a food requirement would be an awesome excuse to expand to building meaningful bases.

[Geschosskopf]

See, I've never played Orbiter and I probably never will, but the challenge of managing another resource is very much something I enjoy.

Well, that's too bad. It sounds like you'd like Orbiter better than KSP. And if it turns out you don't, at least the experience will give you a more informed perspective on the real issue here, which is the difference between silly games OT1H and serious sims OTOH.

You really should try Orbiter. It's very good at what it does. It's been around a long time so is a mature, stable product with a huge community and scads of mods. And it's free.

I play with life support now and I don't feel like it detracts from the game at all, whether in adding extra complexity or whatever; it just gives me something else to do. That's what I hope to see from stock KSP. More risk, a tiny bit more management (really, if you think any of the current LS offerings are too complex or that the devs will offer even more complexity, well, I pity you), and maybe some additional complexity just add that little extra something to make the game more meaningful.

KSP isn't supposed to be meaningful. It's supposed to be fun, silly, and meaningless. I mean, look at the entirely inadequate in-game instrumentation. All you have is a collection of parts and a map showing places you can go. Nothing tells you how much delta-V you need to go anywhere, nor how much delta-V you've built into your rocket, nor even if it has the TWR to leave the ground. And when you do get off the ground, you have to rely on a navball that only shows 2 of the 6 directions and a map interface that only really works well for trips to Mun.

Thus, KSP is about slapping some parts together in hopes they work and flying by the seat of your pants, guided only by your previous empirical experience and whatever outside calculations you care to make. After all, your Kerbals are rated for stupidity instead of the intelligence implicit in the term "rocket science". Fortunately, you have an infinite supply of them.

This all is so totally the opposite of how real space programs work that KSP can only be regarded as a satire. If the intent was otherwise, don't you think Squad would have fleshed out the instrumentation and other basic requirements of rocketry before adding large and unrelated features like career mode? But you need look no further than the official Squad trailers to see there's no serious intent to KSP. KSP is a deliberate and hilarious farce. You're just not getting the joke.

I'm with regex on this one, life support is just another fuel/electricity type constraint. We already juggle those factors in our rocket designs, there's no overwhelming gameplay burden to adding a new one.

Life support is definitely not "just another fuel/electricity type constraint". Electricity is no constraint at all, at least once you unlock your 1st solar panel. And fuel really isn't a constraint, either. It just sets how far you can go. If you want to go further, just add MOAR fuel at the design stage. There's no "juggling" involved here. Put enough fuel on the rocket to go where you want to, add an RTG or a few solar panels, and that's it. Never worry about either one again for the duration of the mission.

Life support, OTOH, IS an actual constraint that you DO have to juggle. It's a resource that is constantly being consumed whether you're thrusting or not, whether you're focused on that ship or not, and you can't get any more of it without a resupply mission. Thus, it IS a burden. Suddenly, your missions have a time limit they've never had before.

Now, if you're the type who only does 1 mission at a time, and these missions just go plant flags and come straight home, I can see how you wouldn't see this as a big deal. You just add a few more parts to your rocket and carry on business as usual, because you're not doing long-term missions anyway. But if you're the type who builds lots of permanent bases/stations/colonies or long-term missions, it's definitely a large burden.

Either you can't make any permanent bases at all, or you suddenly have to start sending supply missions to every base you have on a regular basis. The more such installations you have, the more of a chore this becomes, and the easier it becomes for something to fall through the cracks and die. On top of this, it's just boring repetition, just driving identical trolleys up and down the same street forever, as opposed to the fun of exploration. But the more trolleys you have to manage, the less time you have for the fun stuff. So life support definitely reduces the amount of fun in the game, and you cannot pretend otherwise.

Now, there are of course ways to beat any system. I'm sure a common one would be to just send out so many MOAR snacks to start with that you don't have to worry about your colonies starving before the next save-breaking update. And I'm sure somebody will eventually come up with an "X Universe"-type mod that would totally automate supply missions and run them in the background without you ever having to touch them. And thus even life support could be reduced to the same level of inconsequence as fuel and electricity currently are.

Which then raises the question, why bother with a life support mechanic in the 1st place? At the bottom line, it would just end up as adding some more parts and mass to a rocket, which might require a bit MOAR delta-V than at present. For this you get what? Absolutely nothing except an added irritant for the player and lower game performance. Even if the number of added parts per ship are small, you'd still have all the continuous life support consumption calculations for every ship/base/station/colony/stranded explorer you have everywhere in the game. How can this possibly be considered a good thing?

Far better, IMHO, to assume that life support is ALREADY in the game, built into every ship, invisible under the hood, quietly supplying Kerbals with whatever it is their alien bodies need. This way, you get the same net effect on gameplay as using MOAR SNACKS, only without the useless addition of parts and the CPU load of the bookkeeping .

[Luckless]

Why can't bases be life support supplies? Bring the right equipment and set them up to produce food and water. Include in-game fuel production on other planets/moons, and now your favourite moon around Jool becomes an actual colony with a real reason to exist: Production of food, water, and fuel for the use in further survey missions.

With Kerbal Alarm Clock I have a fairly easy time running many missions at one time with small spaces between launches. While five or six probes or ships are in transit, one is at an active window in its flight path and needs a burn. The rest can carry on as they were for the few minutes the one ship needs my actual attention. When I'm done with that one I can time accelerate to the next one needing attention and so on.

[regex]

Which then raises the question, why bother with a life support mechanic in the 1st place? At the bottom line, it would just end up as adding some more parts and mass to a rocket, which might require a bit MOAR delta-V than at present. For this you get what? Absolutely nothing except an added irritant for the player and lower game performance. Even if the number of added parts per ship are small, you'd still have all the continuous life support consumption calculations for every ship/base/station/colony/stranded explorer you have everywhere in the game. How can this possibly be considered a good thing?

Because it's fun. Because it's another way to "care" about your Kerbals. If KSP is being sold as an "educational" game it helps to illustrate some of the challenges faced by actual astronauts. It could be a fairly decent balancing mechanic for career mode where Kerbals are pretty much required for serious science gathering, especially early on where parts and money might be scarce. It makes the idea of these "space-tourism" missions that everyone seems to be clamoring for a bit less dumb.

I'm sure that when/if life support of some sort gets put into the game there'll be a mod made to rip it right back out, just like I'd make one to rip out any sort of building time mechanic. The devs have already shown us that they're willing to ax any feature that they don't find "fun" and I'm sure life support will get the same scrutiny.

[magnemoe]

Why can't bases be life support supplies? Bring the right equipment and set them up to produce food and water. Include in-game fuel production on other planets/moons, and now your favourite moon around Jool becomes an actual colony with a real reason to exist: Production of food, water, and fuel for the use in further survey missions.

With Kerbal Alarm Clock I have a fairly easy time running many missions at one time with small spaces between launches. While five or six probes or ships are in transit, one is at an active window in its flight path and needs a burn. The rest can carry on as they were for the few minutes the one ship needs my actual attention. When I'm done with that one I can time accelerate to the next one needing attention and so on.

Yes, however this would require large bases, agriculture take lots of space you would be likely to send your first mission to Jool before you was ready to set up an base.

And agree that alarm clock is a must. in 0.22 I launched towards all planets as their windows came up. One ship dropped off four landers before doing the Laythe aerobrake, it was four polar probes two for Jool and two for Laythe. All completed their mission. this mission was entirely unmanned, and was an follow up mission to my large manned Jool mission in the same launch window.

[Eric S]

I'm with regex on this one, life support is just another fuel/electricity type constraint. We already juggle those factors in our rocket designs, there's no overwhelming gameplay burden to adding a new one.

Yes, though it doesn't behave quite like it. You can shut down your fuel use (and usually your electricity use), but you can't really shut down life support unless the craft is unmanned at the time. It's an additional constraint which does provide a little more challenge beyond just "think of it as extra fuel." If I blow a planetary transfer, without life support, I can just fast forward a few orbits until I actually do intercept the planet. This doesn't work if you're playing with life support unless you're using a mod that allows a full, 100% efficient closed system.

If everything goes according to plan and the plan was accurate, then yes, it does simplify down to just another "fuel" to bring along, but the penalties for things not going according to plan or for missing something in the plan are much more severe. But let's be honest, if everything went according to plan and the plan was always complete and correct, this would be a boring game.

On the other hand, I do agree that it should always be optional if made stock.

[illusori]

Going to address a bunch of replies at once, sorry if I miss some points, quoting everyone individually is a bit much like hard work so I've paraphrased in what I hope is in the spirit of what was said.

1. Life support is always consumed, so you will eventually run out: this is no fun.

You already deal with this. If you don't have enough fuel to reach orbit, your mission is a failure, possibly an equally fatal one. If you don't have enough fuel to make your transfer to Eeloo or to brake at the other end, you've got a late-mission failure after a lot of play time. Same deal. The solution is the same, if you're a MOAR BOOSTERS type, then just strap MOAR SUPPLIEZ on. Likewise if you don't provide enough struts "resources" you end in fiery kerbal death. You can still take a "just keep adding more" approach if you don't enjoy trying to make an elegant rocket (I kid myself that I do, emphasis on the trying part).

Now, granted, if you have a base on every planet and like the ability to forget about all the other planets in the game while you focus on setting up a new colony somewhere else, you're going to lose that ability to effectively put all the other colonies "on hold" for the duration, so that kinda brings me to my next point.

2. Resupply micromanagement of a continuous chain of tankers is no fun unless you enjoy Eurotruck Simulator.

Absolutely agree, micromangement is no fun. We already have that though. If you're doing extended operations on Jool then you probably have a bunch of fuel resupply missions already. So you stick some life support tanks on there too. Job done. Actually transferring resources between docked vessels: IMO the UI needs improving so that's single click for fuel transfers already, rather than the current fiddle. Making it so that all consumables are transferred over with a single click would be nice.

If you're someone who doesn't transfer fuel out in tankers, but prebudget your fuel use, well again, you just do the same with life support. It's just an additional constraint that makes it harder to get Kerbals out there than robots.

If you're someone who likes Kethane and resource mining on-site, the same can be done for life-support. You require a bit more infrastructure, but the process is similar to a solution you already do.

Finally there's the tech tree. Life support systems capable of getting you to the Mun and back can unlock early, meaning you can get robots out to Jool earlier than Kerbals unless you want the "grindy challenge" of endless tankers. While better closed-loop systems unlock later, making it possible to get to Jool without the grindiness. Maybe late in the tree there's permanent colony options. You still have to make the design decisions about what approach to use and when. Just as you decide what engines and tanks to use and when.

3. Why bother if it's possible to engineer a solution to all these problems, can't we just assume it's abstracted away already?

Because the point isn't realism. The point is making a gameplay distinction between robotic exploration and Kerballed exploration, so that in some situations there's utility in sending a robot and in other situations there's utility in sending a Kerbal. And those situations may evolve over time: tech availability, launch windows, the mission objectives, the fun and challenge you want from the mission - they're all factors that mean that the "best" answer to the question changes.

Some examples:

• I want to do some basic science on the moon, I don't have big engines or big tanks: I build a robotic probe and stick it on a small rocket.
  
• I want to do some complicated science on the moon and a sample return without rover tech: I need to build a lander with a Kerbal, the life support requirements mean I need to be more efficient with my fuel use or build a bigger rocket than the robot one: a challenge!
  
• I want to get to Duna and back, I still don't have big enough rocket parts to get that much life-support over there, I'm going to have to send robots, or maybe I need to build a staging area in orbit and assemble the vehicle with multiple launches. I have a strategic choice to make, maybe I feel like robots today, maybe I feel like Kerbals. Who knows? Probably not even me until I give it a go.
  
• I want to go to Jool and don't really have the life-support tech for it. What the hell, let's go full Manley mode on it, I'll send a Kerbal to land on Lathe not because it's easy, but because it's mind-bendingly hard and once I've done it, I'm unlikely to ever do it that way again because it will be an exercise in pain.
  
• I want a colony that I can forget about: max out the appropriate part of the tech tree, unlock the 100% efficient closed-loop system and mostly forget about it like you do with enough solar panels. (Or toggle infinite life-support. Or install a mod. Although I respect not wanting to "cheat" or use mods, after all the reason I want life support in vanilla is to avoid needing mods for it. )
  

I hope this makes it clearer what life-support could add to the game and what it wouldn't break in the game.

Edited December 21, 2013 by illusori
Dammit bbcode