A Timeline of Aerospace Achievement, a quick reference I made for KSP players, modder

[sherkaner]

Sorry to make this my first post, but I've mostly been enjoying reading all the discussion here and finally felt I had something to add.

This post is something I’ve been working on for a while that I wanted to share with the KSP community, partially as a work of enthusiasm for the history of aerospace achievement that KSP evokes, and partially what I hope might be a useful source of inspiration for players, modders, and (if I might be so bold) the outsanding developers at Squad.

To me, KSP’s excellence lies in the stories it lets its players create. All of us have experienced the thrill of planning, building, and flying a mission  whether for a contract or sheer curiosity  and the feeling of personal pride that comes from knowing that the story of just how that mission came together and succeeded (or failed!) belongs just to you. No two players land on the Mün for the first time in just the same way.

These stories we create parallel the great true stories of aerospace that have played out over the course of the last several decades.

There is the story of Chuck Yeager who broke the sound barrier and flew ever higher and faster, alongside speed-freak test pilots who would become Gemini astronauts  and of Neil Armstrong who tested the first spaceplane and set first foot on the moon. There is the story of Sergei Korolev who dreamed of visiting the Moon and the planets, designed a rocket that could do it, and single-handedly led the Russian manned and unmanned space program to many firsts. There is the story of Kelly Johnson, who led the design, construction, and operation of a series of aircraft shockingly ahead of their time. There is the story of Carl Sagan, whose mind and curiosity led us to visit distant worlds through the instruments of robotic emissaries.

There are the stories of organizations like NASA (NACA), NPO Energia (OKB-1), JPL (ORDCIT), and the Skunkworks, full of the brightest engineers and scientists, that grew from dusty roots in distant airfields and launch pads into world-changing enterprises. These stories are of barriers broken through skill and risk-taking, technical challenges met through cleverness and determination, rivalries stoked through envy and one-upsmanship, and horizons expanded through planning and a pioneering spirit.

I say all this as a preamble to the timeline I’ve put together:

I wanted to try to capture in very distilled form some of the progression of these stories, as expressed in major achievements in aerospace, starting after WWII (which could really be considered the beginning of the space race in earnest). This is far from a complete picture of course, and my selections are somewhat arbitrary. But I tried to select important “firsts†to give a sense of the order in which struggles were overcome, and how the various technologies related to one another. There may be some surprises here for you (there were for me in researching it).

You’ll see an interesting flow from the early X-plane supersonic aircraft into advanced rocketry which in turn fed into unmanned and finally manned space missions  often flown by the very test pilots who flew the X-planes. Rockets developed as ICBMs become launch platforms for science and exploration. First missions to orbit for glory give way to satellites for communication and telescopes to scan deepest space and time. Tiny capsules used initially for exploration become shuttles to feed space stations. Our reach expands from our own shores out to the edges of the solar system and beyond.

I really enjoyed reading about these various people and programs in putting this together, and I hope in inspires others to learn more about them, and about all the amazing craft and missions that I didn’t happen to include in this timeline.

Edited November 28, 2014 by sherkaner

[sherkaner]

Okay, so I also have an ulterior motive in putting this together, which I want to lay here out separately so this doesn’t come off as a big “devs pls†post. So if you want to ignore this and just enjoy the timeline, feel free.

My ulterior motive is to perhaps suggest some directions for KSP’s development. I think Squad has done a fantastic job of delivering a stream of updates that give us an immensely fun game to play, while also staying very focused on getting systems in place that will allow them to push the game further. In fact I have to admit that my inspiration for this post was seeing Squad working on putting the last few pieces in place toward “beta†that I think will let them craft a game that can deliver a real taste of the depth and complexity of stories that we see played out in real aerospace development.

The biggest item I’d love to see is for the development tree to provide a sequence of development struggles more like our own struggles to space. Now I’m not somebody who thinks KSP needs to be a reality simulator. I love the unique little universe Squad has crafted and the ways it both parallels and differs from reality. But I think the stories of the 20th century give us a good model for how things could play out in KSP and feel very satisfying and true.

Starting in the dusty days of the 50s, I’d love to see players start their manned efforts with jet and rocket-powered aircraft breaking barriers of speed and altitude (while getting experience for Kerbals that will someday be astronauts!), while performing the first unmanned experiments with solid and liquid sounding rockets (exploding more often than not at the start!), taking data at altitudes to scope the struggles ahead.

Moving into the “space race†era of the 60s, I’d love to have players balance the money and time pressures of goals from big funding sources, figuring out how to deliver on short-term contracts (perhaps military or surveillance) while designing and building for long-term prestige goals (perhaps more scientific and pioneering). A combination of ground-breaking aircraft and orbital missions could meet objectives in different ways. Some funders may want proof-of-concept hardware like a mach 6 surveillance craft, some a specific mission objective like a flag on the moon, and some an ongoing mission presence or profile like a communications satellite constellation.

And then beyond, there is such a huge range of directions a player’s program could play out. There could be commercial launch programs to build and support, ambitious science goals to meet, and an ever expanding manned presence to build through stations and bases.

The great thing is that I think KSP has (or will soon have) everything it needs for these things to just be choices, rather than new code! So I’m very excited to play through the stockified Fine Print and the other things Squad is working on. But I might float a few specific ideas related to the above:

1. The development tree could be re-sorted to give access to more aircraft-focused manned missions early on, with rocketry much more crude (and unreliable?) to start. I somewhat dislike the current tree where seemingly arbitrary things unlock late (ladders take research?).
   
2. I’m also not 100% convinced that using “science†to unlock everything is the best approach. I’d like to somehow get access to better hardware by becoming familiar and confident in what I have.
   
3. Related to #1, I think KSP could use just one or two aircraft-focused cockpits that don’t have reaction wheels, but are light weight and (ideally) provide an ejector seat, to support the flight and abort for test pilot missions. Also, perhaps an auto or assisted land function (perhaps in modes other than “hardâ€Â) could be made available to not immediately throw new players into the difficulty of landing on their first manned missions.
   
4. Perhaps also a drop-launch function would make the early rocket-powered craft more straight-forward without forcing a player to build a B-52. Okay, enough about aircraft  moving on...
   
5. Test contracts are a cool way to preview later parts and give a sense of development, but these parts should be much less reliable during testing, requiring special consideration to emergency measures and avoidance of using them on meaningful missions. There were a LOT of failures in the beginning.
   
6. Creating a diverse range of contracts will be enormous to creating a sense of struggle, achievement, and choice. I’m sure Fine Print will go along way this direction, and I won’t lay out specifics, but referring to the range of objectives in real aerospace programs (firsts in speed/altitude/travel, science, weapons, surveillance, communication, and more) provides a lot of inspiration.
   
7. I wager this is already planned, but making the range and line-of-sight for communications would provide some very useful tension in mission planning and execution. Different orbits would have more meaning and missions to other bodies would have to start off less data-ambitious. Perhaps part of the KSC development might even be construction of a DSN (deep space network) with dishes located at different points on Kerbin.
   
8. Cameras. So many missions, both terrestrial and cosmic, military or scientific, center on gathering images.
   
9. Okay one more on planes. I feel like the balance of plane parts needs a bit of work. Aircraft designs do not have hulls full of jet fuel with tiny jet engines tacked on the back. Generally fuel is stored in/on the wings or in small fuselage tanks, with the engines taking up significant room and weight. In fact I notice that many aircraft designs currently end up needing more nose lift because there’s so much less weight in the engine at the back than there should be. Again, I’m not too reality obsessed, but I think hewing more towards reality here with very small changes would provide fun challenges for the player different from rocket design.
   

[diomedea]

My personal opinion, but I strongly concur with most of the points you cleverly listed.

KSP was born about manned (kerbal) space flight, there was no line about planes at the beginning. Now that we approach beta stage, so all features are in place, is time to reconsider how the progression in career should be. And that implies to redesign the techtree (as in your point #1). I can't find it right to have a MK1 pod available since start in career, and not something simpler like the stayputnik (comparable to HW available on Earth in 1961 and 1957 respectively).

And, well, you're right not every part should require research (point #2), though an unlock mechanic should still exist to only make them available when other parts are. So, I would not really change much here.

About #3, definitely right. We don't currently have parts so basic to be used for the early piloted atmospheric supersonic flights, and sure without that part of the program we would never have gained knowledge fundamental for the atmospheric parts of spaceflights (kerbals may risk their lives without much thinking, but nobody on Earth would have put a human on a capsule reentering at hypersonic speed, without first knowledge of supersonic flight).

About #5, agreed too. Experimental parts should not provide nominal performance (not yet perfected) and be more prone to troubles. Given that contracts can be successfully done just by activating parts (not by using experimental parts for further goals), there is no real need for absolutely reliable experimental parts. And, it could add something to the game if players had to always be ready on the abort button.

About #6, #7 and #8, must say I'm happy add-ons exist that provide what you propose. I'm totally happy Fineprint is being integrated in stock, and other add-ons may be in future.

[Wallygator]

I see where you're going with this. The sequencing as displayed above did give me pause to reflect a bit. No criticism intended, just a little additional perspective...

a) Titan was launched and effective before the X15 - so to suggest that aerospace plane research programs always preclude aerospace rocket research is not always a correct statement - it was happening in parallel.

Much of the "competition" between plane and rockets has a foundation on the early assumptions regarding whether a pilot (read "test" pilot) should be in control vs an automated system. many of the early aerospace "Plane" research activities were engineered to establish a clear indicator that the pilot was destined to be in complete control. They lost the argument to the digital computer.

c) Somewhere Robert Goddard was forgotten ;-)

d) I also feel (in agreement with the OP) that the tech tree needs polish - but I think any adjustments should be structured in a less deterministic manner and should allow the player to choose to either develop planes or rockets or both at the same time - just like in real life - let the player make the decisions not the tech tree designer.

Finally - Well done on the summary display! Really nice - Rep to you!

[Streetwind]

Since this appears to be a personal opinion thread:

I disagree the progression changes you propose. I play most saves without ever touching the SPH and I do not want to have to do airplanes before I can get to rockets. I admit that you can easily flip this argument around and say "I do not want to have to do rockets before I can get to airplanes", yes. Two valid, parallel progression paths are perfectly fine with me. But I would not be happy with shoehorning planes in before rocketry just because some people feel that's how it should be. I mean, I also feel that you should never desecrate pizza by putting mushrooms on it. Does that keep other people from enjoying pizza with mushroom toppings? Of course not. It's a matter of taste, not a law of nature. And in matters of taste, there is no "wrong" and no "right" - only individual preferences. This is why we have modded tech trees. In fact, there's at least one that already lets you choose right from the start which path you want to follow, planes or rockets.

In particular, I don't like the concept of a "space race". It's an extremely flawed concept IRL (the discussion of which I shall defer to the mountains of threads on the subject), and more importantly, it's heavily laden with the notions of politics and warfare. I don't think politics has a place in KSP, and warfare definitely has not. I enjoy KSP especially because of the absence of both. Yet without the context of both, a space race could never happen in-universe, and the road of space development might go very different... not to mention everything before it. It feels silly and unimaginative to try and press the Kerbals into the cold war space race template just because it's the only one we know. Like, can't we come up with something new instead? Does KSP even need to follow a template? This is the player's universe, the player should be the one forging the path. Whichever that path may be.

I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but nothing else in your list is really new. These things were all suggested before. The reason is simple - most items on your list can all be summed up under one umbrella: "I am suggesting this extension/rework of an existing feature because I feel like the existing features are disjointed and lagging well behind their true potential. I want this game to truly shine." That is usually the (commendable) motivation of 99% of the people who post in the Suggestions subforum. And that's unsurprising - I mean, this game is still in alpha. The devs have specifically stated that they're still busy implementing the game systems themselves. Both .23.5 and .24 horribly broke the tech tree through their inflationary handling of science points, and .24 is exploitable as all heck to boot... but the tech tree was not rebalanced to take this into account. Not because Squad doesn't care or thinks it is okay as it is, but rather because now is not the time to bother doing it. There are still game systems left to implement. Why fix the tech tree for .23.5 when you're going to break it again in .24? That is why all the features feel half-done: because they are. It is not yet time to finish them.

This has been the tune for many years, but with .90 looming on the horizon, that's about to change. Once KSP enters beta, you're going to see a whole lot of system reworks. I'm betting my trusty LV-T30 that the tech tree subsystem is going to be one of the things that will change the most. It's the oldest and most naive feature of career mode, it's a pain in the rear to mod, and it plays poorly with half the features added in the last year. It may not be the first thing that changes (that probably goes to the aerodynamics simulation, which is already confirmed to get reworked), but it definitely will get its pass.

With that in mind, I think it's important to remember that we haven't even seen the finished puzzle - we just had the pieces dropped in front of us one by one from a box that is still obscured by a piece of cloth so we can't see the box-front art of how it all looks fully assembled. All we can do right now is guess how it will look, and that automatically makes us want to fill in the blanks. But there's already a finished vision under that piece of cloth, just waiting to be revealed, waiting for (quite literally) all the pieces to be in place. So I'm of the opinion that before we try to completely rewrite what KSP is, we should at least give the devs a chance to show us what KSP is. How the game can be when all the half-completed systems we currently have actually start working in concert to deliver a streamlined experience. I think it's something worth waiting for.

For those that disagree with me and don't want to wait, meanwhile, there's mods like the excellent Realism Overhaul packs. NathanKell and ferram4 and many others have put an immense amount of work into it, and I absolutely recommend everyone to try it. It may not ultimately be for everyone, but at minimum it should give people a much more clear view of exactly how much realism they like in their KSP.

[rdwulfe]

I am very much in agreement with most said in this thread, though I agree with Wallygator here that planes OR rockets (or both concurrently, of course) should be up to the player.

The Tech Tree doesn't need to be quite so linear, with specific 'lines' of unlocking.

[cicatrix]

As one gets familiarized with history of space exploration, the true cost of every design aspect of modern rockets and spacecrafts becomes visible.

All those findings, tests, failures, deaths even. Blindfolded experimentation by trial and error... all this I miss in KSP career.

I realize that the REAL R&D work is probably impossible to implement right now, still, if anybody from the dev team cares, I would like to share what I think of it. When I play career I don't want go get an 'out of the box' rocket engine. I want it painfully and gradually developed from a makeshift canister of kerosene waiting to explode to a state-of-the-art reliable and powerful propulsion tool, then I want it upgraded, then retrofitted, etc.

When it would be obvious that my current task requires a different form-factor, or a new type of propellant, or something else then the guys from R&D should take your money and start researching again providing you with a new prototype that I should test, blow-up a few times, etc.

That's what I really miss in KSP.

[Francois424]

Really nice post OP... Love the pictures and the links in there. For a moment I thought you where going to start at the wright Brother's Kitty Hawk (then Me-262A), then where you started. But from 1946 is good enough as well.

About tech tree, there is a good post about that into the suggestion forum, including really well-thought prototype tech tree made by players that support your vision of how you(we) should be able to explore Space and Kerbin in the order we se fit, without relying on Sandbox mode. You might want to give it a look and, barring some obnoxious comments, read-up on it. I have my own Idea on that myself of course (who doesn't) but the more "sandboxy" the tech tree, the more replayability the game has, which is always a great thing.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Francois424

[Wallygator]

Yes this^^^

I am not in support Streetwind's "Wait and see" proposal.

Also, just to reinforce the importance of voicing our opinions on the evolution of KSP>>> It's important, the Devs see this, they do need proper feedback and important suggestions. Any suggestion that insists that we stand down, be quiet, and await the next version (beta or not) is not constructive.

I support the OP presenting a vision (personal opinion? Yes every thing is personal opinion) and the very well structured recap slide. And yes Cpt. Kipard has contributed to a great proposal which is in close harmony with some of the suggestions in this thread. I can't remember the thread name at the moment. More like a star shaped tree with more available threads. Search it out - its a pretty cool idea.

EDIT>>> Found the thread which was referenced: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99521-Tech-tree-and-parts-final-polish started by Wanderfound.

Also a possible error on the progression recap: Gemini 8 used a titan II, while the agena target vehicle was launched with an Atlas - Just saying' :-)

Edited November 28, 2014 by Wallygator
Found the thread...

[sherkaner]

I see where you're going with this. The sequencing as displayed above did give me pause to reflect a bit. No criticism intended, just a little additional perspective...

a) Titan was launched and effective before the X15 - so to suggest that aerospace plane research programs always preclude aerospace rocket research is not always a correct statement - it was happening in parallel.

Much of the "competition" between plane and rockets has a foundation on the early assumptions regarding whether a pilot (read "test" pilot) should be in control vs an automated system. many of the early aerospace "Plane" research activities were engineered to establish a clear indicator that the pilot was destined to be in complete control. They lost the argument to the digital computer.

c) Somewhere Robert Goddard was forgotten ;-)

d) I also feel (in agreement with the OP) that the tech tree needs polish - but I think any adjustments should be structured in a less deterministic manner and should allow the player to choose to either develop planes or rockets or both at the same time - just like in real life - let the player make the decisions not the tech tree designer.

Totally agree with all these points. With respect to "b" and "d" in particular -- yes, this is exactly what I'd love to see. I don't mean to suggest that planes should be strictly necessary before proceeding to rockets, I'd just like to see good rudiments of both available straight away and let the player develop their program how they want. My real world examples show the way it happened for us -- we pushed planes pretty quickly, but in parallel started working with rockets, eventually decided that those were the way to go and canceled programs like Dyna-soar that could have gotten us a Space Shuttle decades earlier (but probably got us to the Moon faster as a result). Real life is just an example of how things could play out.

Finally - Well done on the summary display! Really nice - Rep to you!

Thank you!

[sherkaner]

Since this appears to be a personal opinion thread:

I disagree the progression changes you propose. I play most saves without ever touching the SPH and I do not want to have to do airplanes before I can get to rockets.

In retrospect, I think I gave the impression that I think players shouldn't have access to rockets until they work out planes. That wasn't at all my intention. That is how it worked out in real life, but mostly that was a choice (or perhaps an accident of fate, depending how you look at it). I'm mostly just providing the real world example of how the story played out to suggest that perhaps the tech tree and other things could be tuned a bit to give players more choice and maybe make them world a bit harder to get to orbit, however they choose to do it. I guess the way I see it, technologically speaking at the beginning of the game, planes should have the advantage of being manned (but more difficult to build and fly), and rockets should have the advantage of simplicity to get to orbit quickly (but in the beginning would be more unreliable and unmanned). But mostly I just like the idea of fleshing things out a bit in the early game to provide some more choices inspired by real life technology development.

I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but nothing else in your list is really new. These things were all suggested before. The reason is simple - most items on your list can all be summed up under one umbrella: "I am suggesting this extension/rework of an existing feature because I feel like the existing features are disjointed and lagging well behind their true potential. I want this game to truly shine."

Absolutely! And I don't meant to suggest that I think Squad has to "fix" something here -- the game isn't done! It just seems to me that the pieces are falling into place, and I wanted to perhaps provide a little inspiration as Squad begins to consider how the career game really should come together beyond beta toward a 1.0 release. And I'm certain that nothing I'm suggesting is really new. I hesitated to even mention it as I don't have the history on this forum. I just meant those as some specifics that happened to come to mind when I was looking at the timeline, but I'm 100% certain that Squad will do the right thing to make an incredibly fun game.

[sherkaner]

As one gets familiarized with history of space exploration, the true cost of every design aspect of modern rockets and spacecrafts becomes visible.

All those findings, tests, failures, deaths even. Blindfolded experimentation by trial and error... all this I miss in KSP career.

I realize that the REAL R&D work is probably impossible to implement right now, still, if anybody from the dev team cares, I would like to share what I think of it. When I play career I don't want go get an 'out of the box' rocket engine. I want it painfully and gradually developed from a makeshift canister of kerosene waiting to explode to a state-of-the-art reliable and powerful propulsion tool, then I want it upgraded, then retrofitted, etc.

When it would be obvious that my current task requires a different form-factor, or a new type of propellant, or something else then the guys from R&D should take your money and start researching again providing you with a new prototype that I should test, blow-up a few times, etc.

That's what I really miss in KSP.

Yes, this is kind of what I'm getting at here. The player should have lots of choices (planes, rockets, and the hundreds of variations within those), but I was trying to give some idea of the progression of time and work that it took in real work to achieve certain milestones. Of course job #1 is making the game FUN, but I think using a light hand in providing some sense of that struggle to build up your technology base in the direction you prefer could really be fun.

[sherkaner]

Really nice post OP... Love the pictures and the links in there. For a moment I thought you where going to start at the wright Brother's Kitty Hawk (then Me-262A), then where you started. But from 1946 is good enough as well.

Hah! 1946 seemed like a good point, both historically, and as roughly what Squad seems to be going for for the starting point of KSP (especially seeing the first-level KSC). But yes, I kept being tempted to push the timeline earlier to capture more foundational firsts. The Me-262 and V-2 in particular are touchstones that I left off.

About tech tree, there is a good post about that into the suggestion forum, including really well-thought prototype tech tree made by players that support your vision of how you(we) should be able to explore Space and Kerbin in the order we se fit, without relying on Sandbox mode. You might want to give it a look and, barring some obnoxious comments, read-up on it. I have my own Idea on that myself of course (who doesn't) but the more "sandboxy" the tech tree, the more replayability the game has, which is always a great thing.

Thanks, I'll check that out! I'm certain that others here have given better suggestions than me on this topic. I hope that the very brief historical info I put together might provide a handy reference for that.

[sherkaner]

Also a possible error on the progression recap: Gemini 8 used a titan II, while the agena target vehicle was launched with an Atlas - Just saying' :-)

Yeah, I knew I'd draw some (correct) comments like this. I definitely (over?)simplified a lot of details like this so there was a more clear link between launch platforms and missions that used them. Capturing the details of rocket models is a nightmare, with rockets that were originally standalone being used as upper or lower stages of multiple other rockets, with a range of modifications large and small. "Titan" in particular refers to a HUGE array of launch vehicles. I definitely would urge anybody with the interest to read the wikipedia pages on the rocket names I drop to see how complex (and interesting) it really is.

[sherkaner]

Oh wow, something must be in the air because this fantastic graphic also just got posted to reddit. Gives a great sense of relative scale that I couldn't convey in my timeline. This one is also pretty sweet, with fewer items but a cool depiction of launch weights and rocket configurations.

Edited November 28, 2014 by sherkaner

[Xavven]

Since this appears to be a personal opinion thread:

I disagree the progression changes you propose. I play most saves without ever touching the SPH and I do not want to have to do airplanes before I can get to rockets. I admit that you can easily flip this argument around and say "I do not want to have to do rockets before I can get to airplanes", yes. Two valid, parallel progression paths are perfectly fine with me. But I would not be happy with shoehorning planes in before rocketry just because some people feel that's how it should be. I mean, I also feel that you should never desecrate pizza by putting mushrooms on it. Does that keep other people from enjoying pizza with mushroom toppings? Of course not. It's a matter of taste, not a law of nature. And in matters of taste, there is no "wrong" and no "right" - only individual preferences. This is why we have modded tech trees. In fact, there's at least one that already lets you choose right from the start which path you want to follow, planes or rockets.

How dare you defile pizza by not putting mushrooms on it! Mushrooms are my #1 favorite topping.

I had always thought that it would be more logical to start with planes and then move to rockets, but there's a risk to that from a gameplay perspective. A new player could ditch KSP before seeing its best colors if career mode takes too long to get you into rockets and into space. I like the idea of parallel lines of development, even possibly with two different starting nodes, but for one thing: planes in KSP are far harder to design than rockets. A new player who happened to pick the planes tree could get quickly overwhelmed. It was hard enough as a new player to even get to orbit. It wasn't until I read a spaceplane tutorial on these forums that I understood CoM and CoL and why my planes wouldn't take off.

[sherkaner]

I like the idea of parallel lines of development, even possibly with two different starting nodes, but for one thing: planes in KSP are far harder to design than rockets. A new player who happened to pick the planes tree could get quickly overwhelmed. It was hard enough as a new player to even get to orbit. It wasn't until I read a spaceplane tutorial on these forums that I understood CoM and CoL and why my planes wouldn't take off.

Yeah, this is definitely why I feel that both should be valid development paths up front. And perhaps for a beginner, the initial tutorials really should lead them primarily through the basics of unmanned rocketry up-front, due to the complexities of planes. The only reason I talk a lot about planes is it seems like they could be a satisfying (and realistic, not that that's the most important thing) path of development right from the start, for those who are so inclined, with just a few tweaks.

Specifically to the topic of rocket-focused starting points: To be honest, when I was an absolute newbie starting out with KSP, it seemed really weird to me that I was dropped into a career with access to a manned command module, but no unmanned options at all and quite a lot of rocket motors. It felt to me like the game was saying "you're going to start with a Gemini mission whether you like it or not, noob". I really would have enjoyed starting out with some very simple unmanned sounding rockets to get a feel for how the game operated, without having to worry about Kerbal lives.

[sherkaner]

By the way, for anybody coming across this thread, there is some more practical discussion on the kind of tech tree I had in mind when I posted this, as well as a mod I've been working on to implement it, over at the threads in my sig.

[cantab]

1783: Montgolfier Brothers. First manned balloon flight.

1985: Vega 1 and 2. First balloons on another planet.

It would be nice to see some balloon bits in KSP

Also the development of ion engines may be of interest

1964: SERT-1. First electrically powered engine (ion engine) tested in space.

1998: Deep Space 1. First interplanetary ion-drive probe. Over 4 km/s delta-V in an under 500 kg spacecraft.

And, of course

1959: KIWI-1. First test of a nuclear thermal rocket engine.

[sherkaner]

Also the development of ion engines may be of interest

1964: SERT-1. First electrically powered engine (ion engine) tested in space.

1998: Deep Space 1. First interplanetary ion-drive probe. Over 4 km/s delta-V in an under 500 kg spacecraft.

And, of course

1959: KIWI-1. First test of a nuclear thermal rocket engine.

Oo, good call on those. Definitely meaningful firsts.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Lets not forget about Rosetta and the upcoming New Horizon Exploration