A New Aproach To Science

[RiggerLee]

I'm new to this but hear me out.

Right now you're treating Science like a point system for advancement. I think it would be cool if it had a more functional value. If you started off with very little knowledge about your solar system. By discovering and learning about the system and planets you could unlock functionality in the game. I'll give you some examples.

Right now you automatically have almost god like knowledge about the planets and their orbits and spheres of influence. What if you started out with out that knowledge? Right now you can see into the future two or three gravity assist and sling shots ahead. What if as you planed your orbit you could not predict any thing beyond an encounter until you had gravity scan data from high over that planet. What if you could not predict a local orbit, elliptical, till you had low altitude gravity data? So sling shot predictions don't work till you have high data and capture and elliptical orbit predictions don't work till you have low data.

I'm using the engineering plug in a lot. I think it should be stock but what if it was unable to give you predictions on performance for thrust to weight ratio and atmospheric performance loss till you had gravity scans from the ground and pressure readings from the ground on that planet? Atmospheric reading could tell you whether or not your jet engines would function. Some thing I'd wished I'd known before trying to land on Eve. Pressure and temperature readings could allow you to build survivable probes and capsules. Probes that would not be crushed by the pressure on the surface of Eve so that you could get those gravity readings. but you can't do that till you've dropped an atmospheric probe into the air and had it send back data till it was crushed or impacted. It could also give you rate of decent predictions for your parachutes to take some of the guess work out of landing at low or high altitude on Duna but only if you have the science, the data. Like the Path Finder probe made it possible for the Voyager probes to survive the high radiation environment of Jupiter. What if Jool was a probe killer till you had the knowledge to build shielded probes?

They must have some really good telescopes to know exactly what these planets looked like. What if it was blank till mapped it. A mapping probe photographing a planet or moon from orbit should be able to make a map for me so that I can see some kind of image if I should land on the dark side or be able to see map of what terrain is coming. So the back side would be a gray map but you could see what terrain is coming up. But only if a probe had mapped it and not just a flyby. That might get you a narrow string of pictures but the rest would be blank. It would reward you for being able to put a probe into a stable low polar orbit around that planet. And equatorial probe would only unlock the area it covers.

How about a radar altimeters? It's in the Engineer plug in but what if it was something that had to be earned? How about Topo data? ground scan radar for a probe so you could toggle to a map of the elevation if that map section had been unlocked and transmitted back by a mapping mission? It could also unlock the altitude of impact function on Engineer.

It would be nice if you could do soil samples or soil sample return missions for at least partial credit. Or any thing else to create a function for rovers and landers. There are some fairly cool things that you can do in this game but the "reward" system seems a little off. I just think there could be some practicality and reward to probe and rover missions so that these are not just empty exercises. I mean right now what do rovers do? When they should be exploring all over. Going and finding rocks and sending back data from all over these planets. Soil samples are one thing but a reward for different geologic formations, now there's a reason to take the dune buggy to the Mun.

And while I'm at it... Just installed Realchuts but it still doesn't let me deploy a parachute or drogue at high altitude to use it for any type of aero breaking or aero capture. A deployable Ballute style decelerator, particularly inflatable like a donut cone that you could drop out of the bottom of or a trailing Ballute that you could release would be nice. Skim through the very out side edge of the atmosphere and bleed off speed then chop it and lose the extra drag so that you continue into orbit. You could have radial mount ones too ala 2010. It may have already come up but I haven't found a pug in for it.

And for all my *****ing this is still the coolest game that I've seen for a long time.

Lee

[Master Tao]

These are some really neat ideas, especially the discovery mechanisms. I've read elsewhere that Squad doesn't want to add new planets until there's a discovery mechanism in place.

A few points for the game and mods at the moment: the radar altimeter is available in IVA, and for probes through the Probe Control Room mod. SCANsat provides excellent mapping satellite parts (radar altimeter, biome, and anomalies). I think I remember seeing a mod that allows probes to take surface samples.

For RealChutes, you can set the deployment altitude or pressure by switching to the action groups page in the VAB and clicking on a parachute. I bet you could get a pretty reliable system by also setting the auto cut speed on a drogue.

[chaos_forge]

yep, I think a lot of people on here would agree that integration with a discovery mechanic would make science feel a lot less pointless (if you'll pardon the pun).

[Seshins]

I agree with this.

[allmhuran]

Anything that takes science from its currently divorced, abstract points system to a more integrated system that directly influences gameplay is a good approach in my book!

[LethalDose]

I'm new to this but hear me out.

Okay. Also welcome to the forums.

Right now you automatically have almost god like knowledge about the planets and their orbits and spheres of influence. What if you started out with out that knowledge? Right now you can see into the future two or three gravity assist and sling shots ahead. What if as you planed your orbit you could not predict any thing beyond an encounter until you had gravity scan data from high over that planet. What if you could not predict a local orbit, elliptical, till you had low altitude gravity data? So sling shot predictions don't work till you have high data and capture and elliptical orbit predictions don't work till you have low data.

This is an idea that has come up repeatedly before. A lot. It's just not a good idea and serves no purpose, including the one for which you proposed it.

First, from a historical perspective, the motion of the planets in our solar system were understood long before any probes ever approached them. The gravity of these planets and their satellites can be estimated by observing their motion and their interactions. In fact, that data was required before any mission to these bodies could be planned.

Second, the dev's have stated that they will not be implementing any random values for any parameters for the bodies in the Kerbol system. They want everyone to play on the same system. Essentially, a level playing field. For this reason, neither the gravitation values or any other parameters will change between saves. That means the information can be easily posted online, and available to all players. Hiding the in-game data doesn't improve game play, it just creates what I've seen described elsewhere as "pseudo-difficulty": it's not game challenge, just a more difficult to use interface.

The point: the obfuscation of game data you described is neither representative or real-life space exploration nor good for gameplay.

This isn't meant to be condescending, but IMO, this wasn't a good idea when it came up before, and it's not a good idea now. And in a situation where we're fighting to even get a stock dV readout, having the devs remove more information is a horrible step in the wrong direction.

On other suggestions:

Ballutes/inflatable heatshields are available in the deadly re-entry I believe.

Drogues can only be so effective at the edge of the atmosphere. They require some atmosphere to interact with to cause drag, and at what I'm guessing you're calling "high altitude" is probably still too high to be effective. As pointed out above though, the values are tweakable. I play with FAR, so

The different geographic regions you describe are, from what I can tell, effectively biomes. We expect to be getting more of these "Soon^tm", but who knows when that'll actually happen.

[DeepOdyssey]

I concur. Planetary surface should be not visible to use, for example it should be modeled as grey, flat sphere, that we can eventually unveil using altimetry probe.

[allmhuran]

First, from a historical perspective, the motion of the planets in our solar system were understood long before any probes ever approached them. The gravity of these planets and their satellites can be estimated by observing their motion and their interactions. In fact, that data was required before any mission to these bodies could be planned.

Not really relevant since this is Kerbal Space Program, not "History of Terrestrial Astronomy Simulator". But let's let that slip by.

Then my next response would be "OK, so why not have the player go through that process?" - we've heard about possible telescope/exploration/discovery mechanics being added to the game to make this possible, so it sounds like it might already be on the way.

Finally, the specific suggestion can be read as more an example of a more general kind of suggestion, being that "useful data that we have now for free prior to our first launch" could instead be earned over time by player action. Insert into the set "useful data" anything you like. The OP provides examples, not an exhaustive or definitive list of possibilities.

Second, the dev's have stated that they will not be implementing any random values for any parameters for the bodies in the Kerbol system. They want everyone to play on the same system. Essentially, a level playing field. For this reason, neither the gravitation values or any other parameters will change between saves. That means the information can be easily posted online, and available to all players.

No randomness is required by the OP, and posting the info online won't make it available to in-game mechanics, which right now really just means maneuver nodes, but may in future may mean any number of additional elements.

[LethalDose]

Not really relevant since this is Kerbal Space Program, not "History of Terrestrial Astronomy Simulator". But let's let that slip by.

That's... kind of you? But reading the in-game fluff, it's clear the Kerbals have been observing their system for some time.

Then my next response would be "OK, so why not have the player go through that process?" - we've heard about possible telescope/exploration/discovery mechanics being added to the game to make this possible, so it sounds like it might already be on the way.

This isn't what the OP suggested, so I don't see how I could respond to it, nor how my response could be applied to it. It's a much better solution. However, I still think it's unnecessary. The observation of the planets and the description of their motion was largely understood nearly a century before man could launch into space. Again, this is consistent with the in-game fluff as noted above.

Also, I think "we've heard about" the discovery mechanic from mods, not actual devs (though that link is from a "blue" dev). At least, I don't recall seeing a dev post about said mechanic. If you can link a reference, I'd appreciate it.

Finally, the specific suggestion can be read as more an example of a more general kind of suggestion, being that "useful data that we have now for free prior to our first launch" could instead be earned over time by player action. Insert into the set "useful data" anything you like. The OP provides examples, not an exhaustive or definitive list of possibilities.

I think the devs have stated that they don't want to apply artificial hurdles to the game. Essentially, if you can build a rocket capable of a mission, they feel you should be able to fly the mission. Admittedly, the "discovery" mechanic seems to be contradictory to that kind of strategy.

Basically, if it's done well and enhances gameplay, I'm for it. However, nothing presented here has demonstrated how the "unknown gravity" mechanic would enhance gameplay.

No randomness is required by the OP, and posting the info online won't make it available to in-game mechanics, which right now really just means maneuver nodes, but may in future may mean any number of additional elements.

No, randomness is not required, nor did I say it was. However, without randomness there is much much less purpose for the mechanic.

I simply fail to see how restricting the players ability to place maneuver nodes improves gameplay. Especially since the nodes are one of the most important aides to playing the game. Again, gameplay is paramount, and if you want to restrict one of the most important aides to the game, you have to provide very strong justification.

Overall, I responded primarily to bring the history of this discussion/idea/proposal to the attention of the OP, who stated he was new. I understand the interest, and even value, in this kind of exploration mechanic, I just think that the benefit of it's inclusion outweighs the costs.

[Eric S]

Also, I think "we've heard about" the discovery mechanic from mods, not actual devs (though that link is from a "blue" dev). At least, I don't recall seeing a dev post about said mechanic. If you can link a reference, I'd appreciate it.

Sadly, the only time I remember the devs discussing it was in late 0.18-early 0.19, during the time frame of the great forum oops, so not only can I not point you to them, they just don't exist anymore.

[LethalDose]

Sadly, the only time I remember the devs discussing it was in late 0.18-early 0.19, during the time frame of the great forum oops, so not only can I not point you to them, they just don't exist anymore.

/facepalm. Then the discovery mechanic could entirely be a "oh, yeah... we totally forgot to tell you that was canceled" feature, since that's about the same time they were talking about resource mining's "delay", unless I'm mistaken.

Given the quoted statement is true (and I fully acknowledge that it may not be), then I don't think we should take for granted that the discovery mechanic is even still be considered by the devs.

[RiggerLee]

I didn't realize I was stepping into an argument. I was just tossing out an idea.

Basically I've been a little frustrated with my probes and rovers. I've just been messing around in the game. I put a lot of work into trying to figure out how to build and land a rover and then it was like... ok, what do I do with it. It was a fun exercise but then it just seemed to be a dead end. Probes were a little better they seemed to have some value in terms of the game but I was surprised that they didn't play a bigger part. Unmanned probes have been way more valuable then manned missions. Voyager taught us more then the entire Apollo program. Before that we really didn't know any thing about the outer planets and virtually nothing about their moons. Who would have thought that IO had volcanos or that Titan had an oceans and an atmosphere or that there were ice covers seas of liquid water. Even Mars was a mystery. Our pictures sucked. Canals we thought we could see canals? It wasn't till the Mariner missions that we had any real pictures and at first it was just a stripe across the surface. It wasn't till we got a probe into polar orbit that we could actually make a map of mars. Biggest volcano in the solar system. Biggest valley system. And we had no idea till we mapped it with that probe. One of the big things about mariner was it had an altimeter and could look at the height and period of it's orbit. I really don't think we had a hard number on the gravity till then. Yes all the orbits were well plotted and you could see the pull of Jupiter on the other planets but Mars was small. Unless you can clock some thing going around it you can't even guess at the mass of an object. And even then it's dependent on the altitude of the object and that's not easy to guess through a telescope. So I'm not sure it's as trivial as you're implying. Even the moon is non trivial. Even today it's actually very hard to plot an orbit around it. The gravity is... lumpy. There are weird mass distributions in the body. You can't treat it as a point mass. We had no idea that the atmospheres of Venus and Mars were CO2 till we sent a probe and some of the early probes failed because the heat shield had the wrong angle. You need a different half angle for CO2 rather then nitrogen. I mean these were real problems and mysteries till we got out there. The early probes were crucial in understanding the sun, radiation, and our solar system.

I'm not sure that all of these things should be included in this game. I mean it is a game. I was just tossing out an idea. But I have been a little disappointed in the role of probes, rovers, and the way they treat science.

Lee

[LethalDose]

It's not an argument, it's just different points of view about a topics that's come up before.

Really, I hope the tone of my previous posts to doesn't discourage you from participating on these forums in the future.

You may or may not be surprised that the lack of utility for probes and rovers are concerns that have been previously expressed on these forums.

I think you're absolutely correct about rovers: Outside of the Kerbin system, they tend to suffer from a lack of purpose. And even on Kerbin, Minmus, and the Mün, they're iffy.

I did the same thing you've described above: Built a rover then was... whiskey tango foxtrot do I do with it. The other problem is that (IMO) it takes freaking forever to get anywhere of value with them, even in locations with multiple biomes. Some activities for which I think they are currently useful (haven't tried in game) are:

• Shuttling kerbals/supplies between landed craft and near-by static surface bases (but why build surface bases?).
  
• Getting to near-by landmarks/anomalies.
  
• Refueling tankers for SSTOs you want to relaunch w/o recovering.
  

Probes are useful when you don't want to "risk" your kerbals, but again, kerbals suffer little real hazard in the stock game. I've used surface probes to get science from bodies I wasn't ready to perform a return mission from and didn't want to strand a kerbal. They're also useful to send small rescue missions for stranded kerbals: Attach a probe to a capsule, and you can fly it empty to rescue a crashed kerbal.

Probes become way more useful when you start using some mods, e.g. Remotech2 and TAC-LS. Remotech requires you to maintain a LoS communication network to broadcast control signals and scientific data around the stellar system. This is typically done with comm satellites built around probe cores. TAC-LS requires you to provide finite life support resources to keep your kerbals alive. Probes don't require life support, so they can travel further, lighter, and become more expendable in relation to your crew.

Otherwise, like I said, I understand in earlier posts, I understand the reason it's appealing to use the mechanics you've suggested to encourage exploration and understanding. It's just that IMO, the benefits of the implementations you've suggested simply don't/can't offset the gameplay costs of the require. I think there are different ways that would better encourage the use of probes and rovers in the stock game. I also think that they have utility in the current game, but perhaps not necessarily as many or as important uses as we'd like.

Edited June 23, 2014 by LethalDose

[Eric S]

Given the quoted statement is true (and I fully acknowledge that it may not be), then I don't think we should take for granted that the discovery mechanic is even still be considered by the devs.

Yes, that would be the approximate timeframe. Having spent as much time in software development as I have, any time I hear a dev talk about something that hasn't been released, I hear "It is our intention that..." at the start of whatever they're saying, so I never take anything said about future plans as a hard fact.

Unmanned probes have been way more valuable then manned missions.

That would depend on how you define valuable. In a purely number-of-facts-learned-about-our-solar-system measurement, you're right. On the number of scientific papers done to date, the Apollo project and the science it brought back is still the basis for more papers than the rest of space exploration combined, from what I've heard.

Not that I'm strongly disagreeing with you, either. I think that any truly productive space exploration needs to have both manned and unmanned elements, and I think that the unmanned element gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop in KSP, especially rovers. For that matter, I can't remember the last time I sent off a mission in a stock career mode that had more than one kerbal, and I'm not sure how to fix that. Maybe increase the reputation reward for multi-member crew results? Without knowing how reputation will work, that's just a shot in the dark.

You can't treat it as a point mass.

In some cases, true, but not in all cases. The Apollo missions were planned out and using the patched conics method which has no concept of a mass that isn't a point mass. Which also isn't the point, really, just an interesting bit of trivia.

I hope that the devs do implement some form of life support, as that will give unmanned missions a bit of a boost, and maybe a stock part that can take surface samples (or two even, one that includes some analysis capability and can transmit the results (at a loss), and another that's only good for return missions). then again, without knowing how the experiments are set up, there may not be an easy way to set up different ways to access the same pool of science points, and robotic return missions should count against EVA sample returns, and I'm not sure the two methods should have the same transmission losses.

I think I'd enjoy something somewhere between what we've got and what you're suggesting. Fuzzy pictures for any place we haven't been, less fuzzy for something that we've done a flyby with with the right equipment, and sharp pictures, maybe even with relief data, for something that we've orbited and maybe even scanned (doesn't have to be a full SCANSat type scan, even just something like BTSM's surface scan would probably be acceptable).

A similar concept for gravity. Have the kerbalpedia specify a range for the surface gravity, with the range getting more accurate as you get more information. I agree with LeathalDose that we shouldn't be hiding orbital projections or inhibiting the placement of maneuver nodes based on this information, however.

[LethalDose]

One of the big things about mariner was it had an altimeter and could look at the height and period of it's orbit. I really don't think we had a hard number on the gravity till then. Yes all the orbits were well plotted and you could see the pull of Jupiter on the other planets but Mars was small. Unless you can clock some thing going around it you can't even guess at the mass of an object. And even then it's dependent on the altitude of the object and that's not easy to guess through a telescope. So I'm not sure it's as trivial as you're implying. Even the moon is non trivial. Even today it's actually very hard to plot an orbit around it. The gravity is... lumpy. There are weird mass distributions in the body. You can't treat it as a point mass.

Sorry, I missed your comments about gravity.

I didn't mean to make plotting the gravity of the planets sound trivial. To the contrary, lots of people much smarter than I busted their @$$es to figure that information out. But it was done extremely accurately over a hundred years ago. According to the Wiki, the position of Neptune was predicted to within 1 degree in 1846. I'm sure Mariner's altimeter allowed a much more precise measurement of Mars' gravity, but I doubt it was far from the estimates we already had.

I think patched conics are also far more accurate than you may give them credit. I think it was on one of Scott Manley's deep space hangouts, a guy from JPL was talking about patched conics. He said there's substantially more inaccuracy in predicted solar trajectories from things like solar wind and the Yarkovsky effect than from patched conics' assumptions.

You're also correct that, in real life, gravity is "lumpy", especially around our moon. This is due to mass concentrations (aka "mascons") below the planet's surface. The lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable in the long term, but knowing where these mascons are is not needed to plot most short term lunar orbits (e.g. the Apollo missions). To contrast though, these mascons don't exist in KSP, and even if they did we still probably wouldn't care because for the most part we're typically not worried about keeping anything in very low Münar orbits for long intervals. Though the information gained by measuring gravity over the Mun at various altitudes about those not-mechanically-in-the-game fluctuations can make for interesting fluff and lead to unlocking research nodes exciting new discoveries!

These assumptions (Patched conics and no mascons) are just assumptions that are made to improve gameplay in KSP, the same as we assume that the kerbals

[Sky_walker]

I think the devs have stated that they don't want to apply artificial hurdles to the game. Essentially, if you can build a rocket capable of a mission, they feel you should be able to fly the mission. Admittedly, the "discovery" mechanic seems to be contradictory to that kind of strategy.

Basically, if it's done well and enhances gameplay, I'm for it. However, nothing presented here has demonstrated how the "unknown gravity" mechanic would enhance gameplay.

Weird, cause asteroid redirect patch introduced just that. Even if you have a rocket capable of mission - there is nearly no way to get into asteroid without discovering it first by a tracking mechanics.

[allmhuran]

I simply fail to see how restricting the players ability to place maneuver nodes improves gameplay. Especially since the nodes are one of the most important aides to playing the game. Again, gameplay is paramount, and if you want to restrict one of the most important aides to the game, you have to provide very strong justification.

Yep, I definitely agree with this, removing them until you "earn" them would make things really tough on new players. That's why I wondered if we might have other elements in future that would be a better target for "knowledge removal so that it can be earned by player action". I don't have any suggestions of my own, but the general principle still might have a place. You could perhaps roll the idea into another suggestion we see now and then regarding kerbals getting "smarter" or "better" at their job. Again, right now they don't really do anything, so there's no place for the mechanic to fit as yet... but again, there might be something down the line.

[Pulstar]

Not that I'm strongly disagreeing with you, either. I think that any truly productive space exploration needs to have both manned and unmanned elements, and I think that the unmanned element gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop in KSP, especially rovers. For that matter, I can't remember the last time I sent off a mission in a stock career mode that had more than one kerbal, and I'm not sure how to fix that. Maybe increase the reputation reward for multi-member crew results? Without knowing how reputation will work, that's just a shot in the dark.

Well with budgets added probes should be simply cheaper to send. Likewise the hypothetical addition of life support should make manned flight more difficult.

The point about not having to send more than one kerbal anywhere is very good. The only instance I can think off is if you need more Kerbals to control spacecraft but can't use probes for some reason (parts not researched for instance). To truly solve this though we would need actual skills, experience and specializations for Kerbals. Have one be better at specific kinds of science, another at piloting etc. things like that. This would also solve the other problem, the lack of gameplay reasons to pick one kerbal over another for a mission. As well as making you care about your expert rock lover space geologist Bill Kerman so much you actually don't strand him in space.

Reputation/prestige gains should definitely be bigger for doing something with a bigger crew. Also some contracts should require a "minimum of X" crew to be done.

Likewise we really need hazards to make manned missions to certain places more risky (as in possible to loose kerbals to something). Procedural craters on the Mun already work as an example of these. But extreme weather (Laythe Cyclones? Eve lightning storms?), volcanism, lava flow, heat or radiation (we could really use a geiger counter or similar part) should put limits on where you can send kerbals, without researching appropriate upgrades to EVA suits or spacecraft equipment or simply being very careful. The key though should be to still give players tools to overcome such hazards, just make them either in proper places in the tech tree or costly enough.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Pulstar

[LethalDose]

Weird, cause asteroid redirect patch introduced just that. Even if you have a rocket capable of mission - there is nearly no way to get into asteroid without discovering it first by a tracking mechanics.

Well, fair enough, I can see how the two could be similar, but IMO there are orders of magnitude in the difference between discovery of planets and the discovery of asteroids.

Planets are unique and relatively easy to approach, while asteroids are pretty disposable and more difficult to approach. You can also pick and choose with asteroids, since they show up as unknown objects first.

I dunno, to me there's a difference between hiding a planet behind a game mechanic and waiting for the right asteroid to show up, but that's just me.

[JimmyAgent007]

I feel like im in the middle of both points here, yes we knew a lot about our soloar system before we sent stuff to visit but I also like the idea of not knowing things and having to go out and get the information first hand. What if we had something of a 'best guess' at the beginning of the game and you go confirm things yourself. You may know what the Mun or Duna look like, but maybe biomes dont show up unless you send something close to take scans. Even something as simple as "Confirmed Duna Gravity" and such. Right now Duna has no biomes, so the difference between it now and when it does get biomes could be the same as the beginning of a new game and when you send stuff to go visit. We are still learning lots about Mars that we didnt know before, older pictures from telescopes replaced with satellite pictures. I know this discussion has happened a lot but I feel that if we as a group can figure something out that works then the devs might take notice and implement it when they are ready.

[RiggerLee]

A couple of thoughts on the larger crew capsules. What if there was a need for a larger crew. I haven't downloaded the line of sight mod to play with it. I didn't see it in the mod store place. I did find the deadly reentry but it seemed to come from some where else. With line of site restrictions you would not be able to talk to a command module in orbit when it was on the back side of the moon. I'm hard pressed to think of a reason that you would absolutely have to... but it's a reason to have a crew member. What it a larger crew was necessary for certain experiments or to gather certain data. It's already there in the science module. I did actually use that on a trip to minmus where I went up and down with a lander to all the frozen lakes. I used it to resupply and reset my lander. Then the crew of three came home and reentered in a three man capsule. I think that's the only time I've used the three man capsule. What if landing a lander was a two man job. The light weight lander can required two pilots. That would imply that powered landing would be some how imposable or at least more difficult in a one man pod. I'm thinking an improved display mode set up for landing like the docking mode. Maybe with terrain and slope indicators, better drift indicator's, main engine control but with RCS thrusters for fine control of lateral drift with out having to tilt the craft like when you wind up chasing the indicator. If the sensitivity of the lander to lateral touch down was increased slightly that might be a big incentive to make use of a specialized lander can or if the terrain had more obstacles. Nice bolder fields might negate the usefulness of normal capsules for landing perticuarly if you had a good internal view with wide enough vision and maybe external cameras to make the lander superior. Think Apollo 11 with Buzz feeding Neal data on approach. And it should be even lighter relative to the capsule with it's heat shield. What if larger vehicles required larger crews. Part count, staging, mass, I don't know. Or what if it was based on flight duration. I mean you can't be awake all the time. Imposed sleep cycles, watches, who's in the pilot seat?

On a separate note. I don't think you're recognizing the distinction between plotting orbital position and determining mass of an object. People have been observing there movement in the sky forever. And they came up with all kinds of weird models to explain it. Was it Tycho Brahe that accumulated the huge mass of data that let them start computing orbital paths. It was a very good model but the errors from Jupiter did show. So there was some idea of the enormous of Jupiter. But small planets don't show like that. A small probe follows the same path that a Planet would. There is no way to determine the mass unless

you can see it pulling on some thing like a moon. For which you would need both period and altitude.

I'm not sure any of this belongs in a game. I just think it's technically interesting.

Lee

[RiggerLee]

Another thought. I know you don't like the I don't know where I am or where I'm going idea but... What if the small one man Mercury pod did not have the onboard computer necessary to do patched conics. Which in point of fact I don't think it did. Remember most of that was from the ground. Could the Apollo capsule have found it's way home with out guidance data from the ground? And the mercury capsule sure couldn't do it.

For that matter. What if the one man pod was not equipped for docking. What if you needed at least a two man Gemini style capsule to dock. Which was the case. And the Clampotron just looks stupid on the small pod. It's not like you could ever climb through it. The nose is barely big enough for the small parachute. What if you needed Gemini for EVA which was also the case. Even then it was tough getting some one in and out of the capsule even with two people to help. All of a sudden two and three man pods are necessary.

Lee

[RiggerLee]

I know you hate it but I'm going to toss out another addendum to the "Where am I going idea". What if you could enter nodes and flight paths just as you do now but they had a tendency to drift requiring correction burns. The accuracy depending on the knowledge of gravity that you have for that area. As you get more data the accuracy increases till you fill up that particular science bar. So for instance you would need multiple gravity readings at different altitudes of a body before you would have god insight into the future of your orbit. It wouldn't stop you from flying but it rewards you for doing the research. And it's fairly accurate in that you may not have a hard number for Dunas gravity till you get there.

Lee