Scientists as Navigators

[LethalDose]

So, pilots activate SAS and various automatic headings, Engineers can repair parts and will soon be able to calculate dV for vessels. Scientists provide science bonuses for collection and transmission, but overall lack an "in-flight" utility. Scientists excel in observing the physical world around them, and using these skills could be very useful for informing spaceflight. Currently, there's no stock displays for condition, biomes, and orbital parameters. Scientists could provide this information in a manner similar to the way engineers may provide dV information in the future. A proposed level advancement for scientists, by level:

[table=width: 400]

[tr]

[td]Level[/td]

[td]Ability[/td]

[td]Examples*[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]1[/td]

[td]Orbital "condition"*[/td]

[td]In flight

Suborbital

Low orbit[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]2[/td]

[td]Biome[/td]

[td]Desert

Highlands

Midland crater[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]3[/td]

[td]Basic orbital

parameters[/td]

[td]Pe/Ap

Inclination

Eccentricity[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]4[/td]

[td]Adv. orbital

parameters[/td]

[td]Anomalies

& arguments[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]5[/td]

[td]None[/td]

[td]None[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

*Data viewable in flight view

The idea here is to provide useful data in the flight view that is currently unavailable (like argument of the AN), requires changing views (Pe/Ap in map view), or using instrumentation/reports (situation/biome) that need to be ditched afterwards. Some of this data is particularly important for some missions, e.g. satellite placement, but is currently unavailable in the stock game, which is absurd. The first and second level information could be combined into second level if the devs feel like it's important for 1st level scientists to be useless like they are now.

The "justification" for the advancement is scientists gaining more experience observing the planets and learning to use stellar navigation to determine the values of the more advanced values (orbital parameters). The system is 'gamified' by gating the information that can be displayed by level.

I understand that they tweeted we're getting "more knowledgeable" scientists, but I think this could also be a useful addition to the scientists, especially on missions that aren't specifically for gathering science. The various abilities could also be added to science parts (e.g. basic orbital parameters provided to the gravioli detector) similar to the manner that pilot abilities have been added to the various probe cores.

Edited February 15, 2015 by LethalDose

[RainDreamer]

Would be nice if they can "suggest" a maneuver node to intercept a target whenever we specify one and we can choose to execute that node or modify it as we wish.

[LethalDose]

Would be nice if they can "suggest" a maneuver node to intercept a target whenever we specify one and we can choose to execute that node or modify it as we wish.

I appreciate the feedback, but I think what you're proposing would be incredibly problematic for a number of reasons.

First, what I'm suggesting merely displays data that is already tracked in the game. What you've described would require a ton of programming to build a system to generate those suggestions. I really doubt Squad would pursue this suggestion due to the work that would need to start from scratch this 'close' to release. Second, there are tons of ways to make burns to get the same result. If the stock game started suggesting one, it'd become the "right" way to do something and would cause problems in the community about how the game is making suggestions. Finally, IMO "suggesting nodes" is too similar to the game playing itself. There's little to no need for that function if the game has appropriate tutorials, while the information I've listed desperately needed in the stock game.

I'm not going to debate this further, since it goes way beyond what I've suggested. If you want to suggest scientists can 'suggest' nodes, please pursue it in a separate thread. I'd prefer this thread not get derailed with a suggestion that's so far from the OP.

[sumghai]

I don't think scientists need an in-flight utility; besides, navigation seems like a task intrinsically linked to pilots.

[RainDreamer]

hmm...I am just thinking how to really convey the navigator idea. Since it currently sounds like they are extra science instruments like scansat ones. XD

[LethalDose]

I don't think scientists need an in-flight utility; besides, navigation seems like a task intrinsically linked to pilots.

I'm curious why you think scientists don't need an in-flight utility, they're useless on missions where science collection isn't a priority. Pilots already have an ability, I'm not sure why you think they need more. Besides, the situations are needed for science collection. If it's clear that navigation is needed as an in-flight utility and scientists don't have one, then it seems a clear choice to add it to them.

hmm...I am just thinking how to really convey the navigator idea. Since it currently sounds like they are extra science instruments like scansat ones. XD

Yes, everything I'm describing is already done by mods. The point of this subforum is suggestions for stock.

And if "Navigation" isn't the perfect term for what you think I'm describing, so what? again, the central idea is clear: Orbital data from scientists. Don't derail the thread.

[Tuareg]

what a lovely idea \o/ yes please. it could be the answer to launch windows, kerbal skills, science usefulness, double yes please

[sumghai]

I'm curious why you think scientists don't need an in-flight utility, they're useless on missions where science collection isn't a priority. Pilots already have an ability, I'm not sure why you think they need more. Besides, the situations are needed for science collection. If it's clear that navigation is needed as an in-flight utility and scientists don't have one, then it seems a clear choice to add it to them.

The task of navigation is intrinsically linked to piloting. It makes little sense to assign that to scientists if the main reason is to give them work to do while in-flight.

Instead, it would be more appropriate for scientists to perform science-over-time experiments whilst in-flight / in orbit, to be able to monitor crew health / well-being, etc.

[Tuareg]

The task of navigation is intrinsically linked to piloting. It makes little sense to assign that to scientists if the main reason is to give them work to do while in-flight.

Instead, it would be more appropriate for scientists to perform science-over-time experiments whilst in-flight / in orbit, to be able to monitor crew health / well-being, etc.

nope, actually irl scientists calculate the burns and pilots do it... i think op has a perfect sense on it

[MartGonzo]

Good idea, scientists could calculate transfer windows too.

I tend to think that it's the one necessary thing still missing from the game.

[sumghai]

nope, actually irl scientists calculate the burns and pilots do it... i think op has a perfect sense on it

Scientists on the ground do calculate the burns and course corrections required for spaceflight.

Scientists serving as astronauts on a manned flight are mission specialists, primarily responsible for payloads / experiments. I doubt that scientists in this latter category would also perform these calculations, much less celestial navigation.

[Tuareg]

Scientists on the ground do calculate the burns and course corrections required for spaceflight.

Scientists serving as astronauts on a manned flight are mission specialists, primarily responsible for payloads / experiments. I doubt that scientists in this latter category would also perform these calculations, much less celestial navigation.

i didn't say on-flight scientists calculate the burns, i just said its done by scientist, but as we don't have them on the ground who else could do it? sure not the pilots...

[Wallygator]

No. Just Plain No.

Any further embedding or extension of the existing poorly constructed experience/role/reputation system should be squashed. The entire construct needs to be rethought and reimplemented. Perhaps somewhere in 2.0 and beyond.

[cpast]

Scientists on the ground do calculate the burns and course corrections required for spaceflight.

Actually, the people who calculate burns are engineers, not scientists. The line can get kind of fuzzy, but calculating burns is applying known scientific principles to achieve some specific goal, and that's much more "engineering" than "science" (science being more about discovering new things about how the universe works; if you're discovering new things about how the universe works during your burn, that's probably bad). Scientists might be involved in deciding what the spacecraft should do in general terms to achieve scientific goals, but there's a reason flight dynamics officers tend to have an engineering background. Very little about spacecraft *operation* counts as science in my book; the goals are scientific, but that's exactly how KSP uses its scientists (i.e. to do its Science, not as core people in charge of making and operating spacecraft that work through well-understood principles.

Edited February 15, 2015 by cpast

[wizzlebippi]

If you want scientists to have an in-flight purpose, give them the ability to buff the science module and find points of interest on planets, moons, ect. Using them as navigators seems odd.

[Pthigrivi]

I like it man, especially telling you what biome you're in. It would also be great if they'd tell when you're near uncollected science. I find myself constantly spamming my gravoli and its not very intuitive.

[sumghai]

i didn't say on-flight scientists calculate the burns, i just said its done by scientist, but as we don't have them on the ground who else could do it? sure not the pilots...

Just because Kerbalnauts of the scientist specialization currently don't have anything to do whilst in-flight, doesn't justify shoehorning burn calculcations and celestial navigation as part of their duties. In my previous posts, I've even proposed more appropriate in-flight duties for Kerbalnaut scientists, such as running science-over-time experiments, monitoring crew health and well-being (i.e. Having a scientist in the crew may reduce cabin fever-esque behaviour in other Kerbals).

And why should Kerbalnaut pilots not be able to perform navigation tasks? (See cpast's response)

Assigning duties to different specialisations shouldn't be about "just giving them something -anything- to do coz it ain't fair", but whether the specific duties are appropriate to the profession. It doesn't matter if a pilot has three tasks while a scientist has one; the nature of the scientist's one task may very well likely to perclude his/her ability to additionally perform any of the three pilot tasks.

No. Just Plain No.

Any further embedding or extension of the existing poorly constructed experience/role/reputation system should be squashed. The entire construct needs to be rethought and reimplemented. Perhaps somewhere in 2.0 and beyond.

Personally, I'm tempted to agree - I would prefer each Kerbal to have different levels of expertise in most (if not all) roles, and it is this variation that determines a Kerbal's (nominal) specialisation.

Actually, the people who calculate burns are engineers, not scientists. The line can get kind of fuzzy, but calculating burns is applying known scientific principles to achieve some specific goal, and that's much more "engineering" than "science" (science being more about discovering new things about how the universe works; if you're discovering new things about how the universe works during your burn, that's probably bad). Scientists might be involved in deciding what the spacecraft should do in general terms to achieve scientific goals, but there's a reason flight dynamics officers tend to have an engineering background. Very little about spacecraft *operation* counts as science in my book; the goals are scientific, but that's exactly how KSP uses its scientists (i.e. to do its Science, not as core people in charge of making and operating spacecraft that work through well-understood principles.

Ah, makes more sense. I stand corrected.

If you want scientists to have an in-flight purpose, give them the ability to buff the science module and find points of interest on planets, moons, ect. Using them as navigators seems odd.

Agreed. So in summary, appropriate duties for Kerbalnaut scientists include:

- Science-over-time + buffs to science module

- Ability to find points of interest on celestial bodies

- Crew health / wellbeing (this could be re-assigned to a Flight Surgeon specialisation instead)

Definitely plenty of things for scientists to do in-flight that does not require shoehorning "navigation" tasks.

[LethalDose]

The task of navigation is intrinsically linked to piloting. It makes little sense to assign that to scientists if the main reason is to give them work to do while in-flight.

Instead, it would be more appropriate for scientists to perform science-over-time experiments whilst in-flight / in orbit, to be able to monitor crew health / well-being, etc.

The first part is just plain wrong. IRL, the navigator is practically never the pilot, and the only time the pilot would perform navigation is if there were literally no-one else to do it, e.g. a one man crew or a very small crew where the other members have something much more pressing to do.

A space vessel would be like a naval vessel, with one person reckoning location and course (the navigator) and one person setting heading and managing attitude (the Pilot, or helmsman).

Or you know what, they could work this way, and it would be a good game mechanic to spread duties through crew members and encourage diverse crews.

As far as the last part, Harvester has beat us over the head with how "time based mechanics" ain't never happening, so it's not really a valid alternate suggestion. The scientists already buff science transmissions and returns.

- - - Updated - - -

Definitely plenty of things for scientists to do in-flight that does not require shoehorning "navigation" tasks.

This isn't shoe-horning in navigation. It's a way giving the player important information they need (as delineated in the OP).

This isn't shoe-horning anything any more than having engineers provide dV.

Additionally:

Assigning duties to different specialisations shouldn't be about "just giving them something -anything- to do coz it ain't fair", but whether the specific duties are appropriate to the profession. It doesn't matter if a pilot has three tasks while a scientist has one; the nature of the scientist's one task may very well likely to perclude his/her ability to additionally perform any of the three pilot tasks.

If this weren't a game, this may have been a valid point. It is a game, and hence, invalid. It's further invalidated by the fact that it's simply not a pilot task.

Edited February 16, 2015 by LethalDose

[sumghai]

The first part is just plain wrong. IRL, the navigator is practically never the pilot, and the only time the pilot would perform navigation is if there were literally no-one else to do it, e.g. a one man crew or a very small crew where the other members have something much more pressing to do.

A space vessel would be like a naval vessel, with one person reckoning location location (the Navigator) and one person setting heading and managing attitude (the Pilot, or helmsman).

Or you know what, they could work this way, and it would be a good game mechanic to spread duties through crew members and encourage diverse crews.

The only reason I envisioned celestial navigation as a pilot's task is because there is currently no dedicated "Navigator" amongst the available Kerbal roles. The existing role of Pilot was the (next) most relevant person to assign celestial navigation duties to, while calculating burns is the domain of Engineers (as per cpast's musings).

Larger crews could have at least two pilots: one pilot at the helm, the other pilot as the navigator. But whichever way one cuts it, celestial navigation is still the purview of the Pilot role.

This isn't shoe-horning in navigation. It's a way giving the player important information they need (as delineated in the OP).

This isn't shoe-horning anything any more than having engineers provide dV.

I agree that celestial navigation should be one of the tasks Kerbals perform.

I disagree that scientists should be responsible for navigation, for reasons stated by myself and others.

Edited February 16, 2015 by sumghai

[DMagic]

I think if you remove the term navigators and maybe rethink the last few levels this makes great sense.

Science is intrinsically tied up with your current vessel situation and biome. Having a scientist be able to say what situation and biome you are in makes perfect sense; the scientist knows best when to collect valuable data. This kind of simple suggestion also doesn't require reworking the science system (whether or not that is a good idea is a different topic), but improves the current system.

Having data on orbital parameters would be great, but I agree that engineers might be more well suited to this, and it would go along well with them providing a dV readout.

The upper levels for scientists could incorporate something like Science Alert's data. Not just telling you what situation you're in, but also how much science is remaining for that area.

[sumghai]

I think if you remove the term navigators and maybe rethink the last few levels this makes great sense.

Science is intrinsically tied up with your current vessel situation and biome. Having a scientist be able to say what situation and biome you are in makes perfect sense; the scientist knows best when to collect valuable data. This kind of simple suggestion also doesn't require reworking the science system (whether or not that is a good idea is a different topic), but improves the current system.

Scientists being able to determine the current biome whilst in-flight is perfectly fine. I do not disagree with this.

However, biomes and finding areas of interest should not come under or be directly-related to celestial navigation, so perhaps LethalDose might wish to alter his/her thread title.

Having data on orbital parameters would be great, but I agree that engineers might be more well suited to this, and it would go along well with them providing a dV readout.

Agreed.

[LethalDose]

Scientists being able to determine the current biome whilst in-flight is perfectly fine. I do not disagree with this.

However, biomes and finding areas of interest should not come under or be directly-related to celestial navigation, so perhaps LethalDose might wish to alter his/her thread title.

No.

I'm frankly tired of posters coming, belittling others suggestions and holding their own opinions up as being more valid than others. I've already addressed changing the term "navigation" in this thread.

And if "Navigation" isn't the perfect term for what you think I'm describing, so what?

Thanks for reminding me why it's a waste of time to post ideas in these forums: My opinion is different than a moderator's opinion, so my idea is invalid. I guess it's time to start editing my posts without consent and handing out reprimands.

I think if you remove the term navigators and maybe rethink the last few levels this makes great sense.

Science is intrinsically tied up with your current vessel situation and biome. Having a scientist be able to say what situation and biome you are in makes perfect sense; the scientist knows best when to collect valuable data. This kind of simple suggestion also doesn't require reworking the science system (whether or not that is a good idea is a different topic), but improves the current system.

Having data on orbital parameters would be great, but I agree that engineers might be more well suited to this, and it would go along well with them providing a dV readout.

The upper levels for scientists could incorporate something like Science Alert's data. Not just telling you what situation you're in, but also how much science is remaining for that area.

So you have three opinions on who should provide orbital data: pilots, engineers, and scientists. I guess the only valid one is pilots, because that's just what it's supposed to be, huh? </sarcasm> I guess Bob and I need to sit in the back and learn to stay in our lane.

[Tuareg]

Actually, the people who calculate burns are engineers, not scientists. The line can get kind of fuzzy, but calculating burns is applying known scientific principles to achieve some specific goal, and that's much more "engineering" than "science" (science being more about discovering new things about how the universe works; if you're discovering new things about how the universe works during your burn, that's probably bad). Scientists might be involved in deciding what the spacecraft should do in general terms to achieve scientific goals, but there's a reason flight dynamics officers tend to have an engineering background. Very little about spacecraft *operation* counts as science in my book; the goals are scientific, but that's exactly how KSP uses its scientists (i.e. to do its Science, not as core people in charge of making and operating spacecraft that work through well-understood principles.

what? lol. engineers fix broken solar wings, not calculating spherical geometry paths. those are mathematicians and physicians lol scientists... and we have scientists.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Tuareg

[Red Iron Crown]

I like this idea. Makes scientists useful in sandbox mode too, which they currently aren't.

Even if it's debatably not 100% realistic to have scientists also do in-flight orbital calcs and such, it seems to be a good idea gameplay-wise, keeping scientists relevant after the tech tree is fully unlocked or on missions that are not science-driven.

[RainDreamer]

Yes, everything I'm describing is already done by mods. The point of this subforum is suggestions for stock.

And if "Navigation" isn't the perfect term for what you think I'm describing, so what? again, the central idea is clear: Orbital data from scientists. Don't derail the thread.

Well, I am just saying they are performing as data reader instead of navigator, like scientific instruments. If that is your idea then great! The wording was just confusing me, and I had no intention of derailing the thread. You kind of scared me too. So I will show myself out.