100% transmit value for thermometer, barometer, accelerometer and gravioli

[ThermalShark]

It makes no sense for the small science (what we had before 0.22) to have transmit values of 40%-50%. They are just numbers after all... We already have the Mobile Materials Bay, surface sample, atmosphere analysis and Mystery Goo with values of 20%-35%, but for them it makes more sense because they are physical samples, except for the atmosphere analysis, which should have a pretty high value after processing.

[Dispatcher]

I feel the same way about this.

[Superfluous J]

While I agree that it makes no sense, it makes at LEAST as much sense as the fact that that single number is worth more (or even the same amount as, or a tiny fraction of the amount) scientifically than a hands-on report from a crew member on-site.

In reality, the thermometer scan would be worth about 1 science per biome. But from a gameplay perspective nobody would bother to use them if that was the case. Likewise, if all this data was fully transmittable there'd be less and less reasons to send Kerbals places. Now, there's a (poor, admittedly, but hopefully that'll balance out soon) reason to send a probe to Eeloo before sending Kerbals. If you could transmit enough things back for no loss, there'd be no reason for the follow-up Kerbed mission.

[Dispatcher]

I don't have a problem with reducing the value of simple scan data; its just the idea of having raw data that is less useful if transmitted than if it were hand delivered, so to speak.

[regex]

I feel like this will be far less of an issue once there are more "biomes" outside of Kerbin SOI. Right now there is no real reason to do science outside of Kerbin SOI since the repeatability of said science is very low. Meanwhile, spamming the Mun and Minmus with Kerbaled return landers can quickly finish up the tech tree since there is no real incentive to transmit from those locales to being with.

[KerikBalm]

Likewise, if all this data was fully transmittable there'd be less and less reasons to send Kerbals places. Now, there's a (poor, admittedly, but hopefully that'll balance out soon) reason to send a probe to Eeloo before sending Kerbals. If you could transmit enough things back for no loss, there'd be no reason for the follow-up Kerbed mission.

Not true, my first mun and minmus missiones were kerbal'd, but lacked proper science instruments. So I sent probes after those science parts were unlocked.

There was no incentive to make them kerbal'd, as I returned the entire probe.

Transmitting with no loss removes the incentive to have a return vehicle, but it is irrelevant to whether or not that return vehicle is manned.

In fact, I think its a**-backwards... crew reports and EVA reports are transmitted for full science value.

You'd get more science for less rocket, by sending kerbals to a location, and leaving them there, while a small probe takes the science back to kerbin....

IRL, you'd get much more science from a long term data collection station, than from bringing back a thermometer...

It would be much more interesting to observe temperature variations from day/night, at perapsis vs apoapsis/as the orbital position varies, etc.

Longer seizemic readings will map the internal composition with more resolution/accuraccy, etc.

Seasonal pressure readings from duna would be much better than returning a barometer...

Meanwhile, what good is a crew report or EVA report? what did Neil armstrong tell us that we couldn't have learned from a robot with a camera or robotic arm?

A robot with a spectrophotometer, and a camera that can see in uv and IR, would be much more interesting.

Goo experiments and surface samples are really the only experiments that seem to make sense to me that would require returning to Kerbin for full science data.

Also, I want a robotic scoop so my probes can take surface samples!

When an economy is implemented, you could earn prestige, or something like that from sending living kerbals, and that could increase your funding, and that would be your incentive.

[Dunbaratu]

What happened here, in my opinion, is that SQUAD solved a problem the wrong way around.

The problem is that a single reading from an instrument doesn't mean much. You want to take seismometer readings from several nearby locations and compare them. You want a thermometer to tell you the temperature gradient as you descend. You want to know how the gravity is changing as you orbit, to detect the pattern of non-uniform planet material density. The solution to this was to make you transmit many times, when what it should have been was to make the science data require travel to be worth full points. i.e. if you turn on the gravioli detector, time warp through several polar orbits, and then send your data, you get full value, but if you just send a single datapoint you don't. In other words, the proper moment to need to move ahead through a span of time is not when waiting for batteries to recharge for a second sending, but when taking the experimental data in the first place.

[Kasuha]

I think it is irrelevant whether we can or cannot transmit full scientific value. We can find reasons for either.

Transmit 100%: it's all numbers so what's the matter?

Transmit less: you need to recover the instrument to check how much its calibration changed during flight. If you don't check the calibration, transmitted numbers are inaccurate.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think the science system is meant to be realistic. If you think about it, it's a bit silly that learning more about various celestial bodies unlocks better rocket parts. In reality you spend money on engineers, testing, and materials science to get better rocket parts.

The science system is meant to give a reason to put craft on those other bodies. The transmit penalty is meant to give a reason to return those craft. Crew reports and EVA reports are valuable to give a reason to send manned craft.

[Gavin McStine]

I think you should have to return, its kinda like seasons but you can't wait for it to change as you'll run out of food. Yes i know your kerbs will live for ever. But it kinda makes sense without having to code all that.

[coolitic]

Numbers can be wrong as it can be variable.

[Dunbaratu]

I don't think the science system is meant to be realistic. If you think about it, it's a bit silly that learning more about various celestial bodies unlocks better rocket parts. In reality you spend money on engineers, testing, and materials science to get better rocket parts.

The science system is meant to give a reason to put craft on those other bodies. The transmit penalty is meant to give a reason to return those craft. Crew reports and EVA reports are valuable to give a reason to send manned craft.

Then that's even MORE reason to implement what I suggested. There is currently no reason for space stations, satellites, or ground rovers because you get the same science points for an instant point of time measurement as you do for a measurement while moving over a long distance. Science points that you get while moving that you cannot obtain from a simple point in time measure gives you reason to build all those things.

Right now, a rocket that goes up to 100,000 meters and then falls back down is worth just as much for science as one that goes to 100,000 and stays in orbit there.

[dadtaxi]

Science points that you get while moving that you cannot obtain from a simple point in time measure gives you reason to build all those things.

I like the idea put forward elsewhere that the thermometer and barometer ( and maybe for gravioli ) have a (small) tech tree of their own

i.e.

single measurement ---> auto logging

which still maintains the measurement/sampling separation

parallel this with a data transmission percentage increase as you better your antennae/power usage/power generation and its a more realistic copy of historical science advancement.

Even pre-WW2 had temperature and pressure logging and that was pre-orbit (let alone moon) capable.

This i believe would provide more focus on pre-mun missions ( ie polar orbit anyone? ) for the absolute beginner, and then later interstellar satellite missions

[helaeon]

I think the science you get for returning a vehicle to Kerbin should be much higher and much more repeatable, said vehicle having Kerbals gets a bonus per Kerbal. Though this may work it's way into the contracts/rep system for all we know.

But the actual raw measurement itself isn't worth very much, except that first novel one. Doesn't matter if it's returned or transmitted. Where you get big missions is on that multiplier, a productive well executed mission is worth a lot of science.

Probably could put something in place for vehicle linger time in orbit or something. Maybe science lab on a space station in Kerbin orbit continually can be taken science packages and after a set period of time you can get the completed experiments for return. Again this could be a contracts thing.

The transmitted science being lower should be the "for sure" science you get in case of catastrophe. It still sits in that cabin's log if it's returned to Kerbin safely you get the rest of it, if it's kerballed you get the multiplier. (There has to be a point to manned missions other than to do crew & eva reports and pick up surface samples and reason to take more than one).

[vger]

Unless the devs say otherwise, I've been under the impression that these simple devices are simply representations of bigger things.

Ignoring the fact that the temperature of an alien world shouldn't lead to better rockets, let's take a look at how our real science typically works. What we have in Kerbal feels more like the 60's than anything else (and rightfully so, since that was when the space age really took off.) But in modern times? We learn a lot more from probes now than we can from manned missions, IMO. There are (sadly) only two reasons to send humans to other worlds now. One is for the sake of compensating for errors, and the other is to draw the crowds. By remote control, a probe can remain in space gathering data practically forever, and we're learning a TON more information than we would by sending humans, simply because we'd have to bring them back in a relatively short time if we wanted them to still be alive. A probe can sit there and stare at one rock for a month if it wants.

Is the science garnered from a thermometer too much? Sure it is. But a thermometer (or even a fully-loaded probe) doesn't come close to how much we learn from the real thing. There are countless instruments that the game doesn't even delve into, and I imagine that is why we get so much from the simplistic things we CAN put on a probe. They're generalized representations of what real probes can give us.

Having said all of that, it still makes sense that the manned missions result in more 'science' than the probes. Anything NASA/JPL has done has gathered some attention, but still none of it comes close to Apollo. Were we to send humans to Mars, or even back to the moon, that would be more attention than space has gotten in decades. Imaginations would be sparked, career interests would change, and there would be a renewed public interest in humanity's future in space. This ultimately leads to more people studying to become rocket scientists, astrophysicists, etc, resulting in: BAM! More science and better tech.

Personally, when I first heard about the career system, I pictured something a bit more RPG or Sim-City like. How you manage your space agency doesn't just impact what you can learn. You would also have to do things to keep the public (not just the science geeks, but EVERYONE) interested. Public interest makes it a political interest, which results in more funding. You can send all the probes you want and learn tons, but make few headlines. There would always come a point where you have to score a hail mary touchdown to get the crowds going wild. This would be a lot more interesting if life-support was an actual factor though.

Edited February 26, 2014 by vger

[Red Iron Crown]

Interesting thoughts, vger. I like your idea of having to keep the public interested to keep the money flowing. I would add a third reason for sending manned missions: colonization.

[xcorps]

I don't think the science system is meant to be realistic. If you think about it, it's a bit silly that learning more about various celestial bodies unlocks better rocket parts. In reality you spend money on engineers, testing, and materials science to get better rocket parts.

The science system is meant to give a reason to put craft on those other bodies. The transmit penalty is meant to give a reason to return those craft. Crew reports and EVA reports are valuable to give a reason to send manned craft.

I totally agree. The idea that we are getting science points from mystery goo and thermometer reads to advance rocket design is fundamentally flawed. We get those points to advance toward game goals. If anything, science points should be called something else to eliminate that confusion. Maybe Engineering points.

[Shna_na]

100% may be too high, I'd say maybe 75-85% is reasonable. Some data can be lost which leaves gaps in the results, but this should be dependent on distance and whether or not KSC is blocked by something at the time of transmission.