Time spent in space count towards science?

[Nullpointer]

Is it rational to have science points given based on time in space and observations conducted on the affects of long durations in space?

Right now it seems contracts and performing experiments using the science modules are the only way to accumulate science points, but was curious if science points could be awarded based on time I space too.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

No, because people would just send up one ship, time warp at 100000x and get loads of science.

*effects

[cantab]

It would only be workable if life support was in the game.

[tater]

It could work perfectly well. Really, for engineering, time in space is useful to improve habitat designs, etc. The trick would be to scale it so that the science points come at a reasonable rate. The idea of putting time compression on is dumb, why bother with a career then? Just play sandbox.

Also, Kerbals could have lifespans in the program (assuming at some point they matter). So you'd have your favorite guys retire or something. In addition, if there are some fixed, annual costs associated with a program, gratuitous time warp could be a bad thing… It's just a matter of campaign game design choices.

[dlrk]

Good idea with life support, I've changed station science configs to give me science per day

[Francois424]

I already have done something like that. With .24, you send one tiny probe to each body (round probe core + small battery pack + 2x "1x6" solar panels, + something with repeatable science that works in space or around a planet/moon). Do the contracts which only need orbital science, and you make money plus a few points of science... it adds-up.

But the idea is nice about the lab +life support. Abusable, but nice.

[problemecium]

It could be REAL time spent in space - the same way it takes the same amount of time to transmit data or clean an experiment with the lab regardless of time warp, extra science could be awarded for the number of realtime seconds spent playing the game.

[cantab]

That would still be somewhat abusable though; you could just leave the game running overnight.

[tater]

Really the entire science/tech/credits(contracts) paradigm is pretty broken. As it is, you get science over time anyway if you are willing to click a bunch. Accept "space around…" contracts, report from space around object (leave stuff there), profit. I've been doing a career (stock), and I've landed some probes past Kerbin's SOI (did manned in my previous science career), but I am almost out of tech tree at this point, I'm having fun building a few stations ATM, and messing with a munar base concept.

Unless they do a complete overhaul of "science" in general, the ability to get it faster seems troublesome. Of course most of the tech dates to the 1960s and 70s anyway, even at the most advanced, so the notion of the tech tree is sorta odd anyway as implemented.

[tater]

That would still be somewhat abusable though; you could just leave the game running overnight.

Long term data acquisition still requires reduction. Better would to be to have science broken up. From my first forum post (edited and altered):

I'd divide science/research/tech tree in a different way.

Planetary Science

Spaceflight Science

Medical Science (assume the kerbs get life support at some point).

The Tech Tree would be completely revamped. Each tree component would have some or all types of points required to progress. So for example new lander pod tech would be say 60% Spaceflight Science Points, 20% Medical Science Points, and 20% Planetary Science Points (made up %s ). Most rockets engines might have just Spaceflight Science Points, for example.

Planetary Science (PS):

---Mapping (orbital flights)

---Surface samples

---Geology (seismic, etc)

---Atmospheric data

These would give points mostly towards making better instrumentation for doing this kind of science. The mapping, combined with landers could map out resource areas (assuming this is added). This is a benefit outside the tech tree (you know where to build a mining base).

Spaceflight Science (SS):

---Space measurement sensors (orbital, and at the different distances from Kermin/Kerbol, etc). The "environment" of space to make better stuff, in other words, these might give points to 2 or even all three branches of science).

---Returned craft (how they held up)

---Time in flight (just plain experience feedback from pilots (perhaps weighted by their stupidity?))

---Spaceflight milestones (orbiting worlds, first docking, etc).

This type of data gives points to virtually everything on the new tree.

Medical Science (MS):

---Time in flight (their medical condition over time, there can be experiments or station pods to test medical stuff)

---Returned craft feedback

---?

Medical is just "life support" issues. These points would go towards habitat tech, including any manned elements of spacecraft.

The tech tree might in fact be tied more closely to the contract idea. Spitballing, here...

You get a broad contract from Kerlington to develop a new command pod. It has parts. The first is a manned, orbital flight in a Mk1 pod of some set duration. It might have another requirement for a certain reentry (XXXX-XYYY m/s at 69,000m alt). Another might be to lift 5 tons to LKO or something, then deorbit it and land safely with parachutes. These are "SS" experiments, while the time in orbit is a MS experiment and the reentry is PS. You'd be doing the science to get THAT item by contract. At some point you get it provisionally to test. Obviously this could be tuned to tech tree groupings, not single items. Perhaps you pick a node to work on, and it lists the required points needed from each discipline of science, then you design missions to accomplish those goals, contract or not. In this case, the specific node might have additional requirements that look sorta like contracts. Meaning that you need PS points, but out of the 10 you need, 5 must be gathered at an altitude from 30-60km for this node.

Without mapping, perhaps the map view of a world shows little data. the Mun would be decent from telescopic observation, but Dres? Maybe a flat picture with only rough altitude information. So you can land your probe, but using the map to deorbit to a certain location… not helpful, it's seat of the pants flying.

[Vanamonde]

This suggestion for the game's development has been moved to the Suggestions and Development Dicussion subforum.

[Kasuha]

Every kind of scientific research suffers from a phenomenon called diminishing results. You can't just continue making an experiment over and over again and expect endless stream of scientific discoveries from it.

Imagine you deployed a thermometer in your backyard.

Immediately you realize there is certain temperature

In a few minutes you discover that temperature changes

In a few days you discover there is diurnal temperature cycle

In a few weeks you discover temperature changes with weather

In a few years you discover annual temperature cycle

In a few centuries you discover climate change

In a few million years you discover glacial cycle

Notice all these discoveries are all on about the same level of importance, yet the time required to reach them grows exponentially. At certain phase it's no longer worth investing further money into the experiment as its returns are just too small and chance for any further breakthrough negligible.

KSP makes this simpler. You don't need to pick up hundreds thousands Mun rocks to gain sufficient understanding of Mun geology, you pick two to four and you're very close to all you can get from studying Mun rocks. Similarly any other research in KSP, it does simulate these diminishing results, just getting to the end is way faster.

I believe having any experiment generate constant stream of science points over time, however small, is neither realistic nor good for the game.