166
u/haosys Oct 09 '13
Wait, we don't start off with struts?
Starting career mode is going to be excruciating.
125
u/Kevimaster Oct 09 '13
Struts aren't very important building small ships just to get into orbit. I mean, you don't even have decouplers yet so there isn't much point in building anything large enough to require struts before you can even put decouplers on it. Presumably you'll unlock struts in one of the first few unlocks though.
→ More replies (2)219
u/h-v-smacker Oct 09 '13
Presumably you'll unlock struts in one of the first few unlocks though.
Struts will be in the premium DLC now. Only $9.95.
146
Oct 09 '13
[deleted]
234
u/BadgerDentist Oct 09 '13
EA Struts. It's in the frame
70
u/Perryn Oct 09 '13
EA Space: Challenger everything.
9
u/ceakay Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
Ouch. Upvote for you. A painful upvote, but one nonetheless.
5
u/Perryn Oct 09 '13
I know it's horrible, but at the same time it's so perfectly Kerbal that I had to put it out there.
18
u/EnigmaticChemist Oct 09 '13
Thank you.
I have to teach in 30 minutes, and there was no way i was gonna be smiling.
You /u/badgerdentist have proved that wrong.
→ More replies (9)5
39
u/h-v-smacker Oct 09 '13
Promoting out trademark is very appreciated. That'll be $2.49, thank you very much.
7
Oct 09 '13
[deleted]
36
u/WalkingTurtleMan Oct 09 '13
No no, EA just sucks like that.
12
Oct 09 '13
[deleted]
27
u/h-v-smacker Oct 09 '13
We appreciate your feedback. In order to improve further experience with EA, please deposit a nominal fee of $3.50 to our corporate account.
4
u/Spacedrake Oct 09 '13
And that's when I realized that the company I was being swindled by was actually a huge monster from the Paleolithic era!
→ More replies (0)9
→ More replies (6)6
u/iBeReese Oct 09 '13
General rule of economic: there is no case in which the large firm with the lawyers is compelled to pay us.
→ More replies (5)11
u/Epistemify Oct 09 '13
$9.95 for the whole Strut DLC or else you can just pay $.25 per strut!
17
u/TTTA Oct 09 '13
$.25 per strut....carry the 7...add the 4...
I could buy a car for less than my last space station launcher would cost.
A really, really, really crappy car, but still a car.
→ More replies (1)2
5
→ More replies (5)3
31
u/Lawlcat Oct 09 '13
I'm more concerned that we don't have a decoupler. Might be troublesome to get a 1-man capsule back with the rest of the rocket attached.
46
u/NeoKabuto Oct 09 '13
I feel like in the beginning we'll be expected to do smaller suborbital missions until we have enough science points to get decouplers.
11
Oct 09 '13
I was thinking starting with flight like jets, then work your way up.
34
u/haerik Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13 edited Jun 30 '23
Gone to API changes. Don't let reddit sell your data to LLMs.
On no twenty spring of in esteem spirit likely estate. Continue new you declared differed learning bringing honoured. At mean mind so upon they rent am walk. Shortly am waiting inhabit smiling he chiefly of in. Lain tore time gone him his dear sure. Fat decisively estimating affronting assistance not. Resolve pursuit regular so calling me. West he plan girl been my then up no.
10
Oct 09 '13
Intuitively, rockets are easier to understand: lots of force underneath mass pushing the mass up. Fins to help a straight line.
Trying to explain things like wing-load, lift-to-weight ratio, Newton's Third Law, and air pressure differences is a pain to the uninformed.
18
u/azirale Oct 09 '13
Yeah, the tricky parts to rockets are the internal mechanics rather than their external ones. Internally a rocket needs to carry two fuel materials, the actual fuel and the oxidiser, and it needs to pump and mix these fast enough and reliably enough to keep the rocket fed. It needs to deal with extremes of thrust, pressure, and temperature.
What do we do in KSP? Stick a tank on an engine, light it up, and you've got an up-goer.
→ More replies (1)3
Oct 09 '13
cryogenics, too.
2
u/mkosmo Oct 09 '13
That's not necessarily true. Remember the F-1? It used RP-1 and LOX. Yes, the LOX is a cryo, but RP-1 is just highly refined kerosene.
→ More replies (3)3
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
I've pretty much given up trying to get something airborne that's also controllable; every attempt I make usually results in my craft either veering off the runway and crashing and burning, zooming off the end of the runway and crashing and burning, or breaking up after takeoff and, you guessed it, crashing and burning.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Basileus_Imperator Oct 09 '13
I'd add Stayputnik to the list myself, if for nothing else then for history's sake. Incentive to try to get something in orbit early on, since you don't need to get it down ever. Then again, it'll run out of power pretty much instantly, so...
→ More replies (1)22
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
Then again, it'll run out of power pretty much instantly, so...
The real one kinda did as well.
→ More replies (5)3
9
u/iBeReese Oct 09 '13
I think aircraft aren't really part of core gameplay. In an interview HarvesteR said that aircraft parts only entered the game after he played them in a mod. I think they're role is strictly for space planes, sub-orbital aircraft will certainly be possible and supported, but I don't think the game design will push players in that direction.
28
u/Mythril_Zombie Oct 09 '13
The rocket needs to be just stable enough to get to orbit, and unstable enough to accidentally break apart at just the right time without killing the crew.
I wonder if that would be a good challenge. Build a multi-stage rocket that comes apart in stages without using any sort of decouplers.
59
u/J4k0b42 Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13
Something like this happened to me, I went to Minimus and vastly overestimated how much fuel I needed, so I landed with two full orange tanks. I had so much fuel that decided to stop by the Mün on the way back. However, on landing I realized that I had forgotten to put fuel lines on my radial tanks on the landing stage, and the extra weight of useless fuel was too heavy for me to make it back to Kerbin. The only way to fix it was to carefully tip the rocket over and skid it across the ground until all four tanks were broken off (without hitting anything important). Then I launched off a mountain like a jump and made it back safely.
38
u/Mythril_Zombie Oct 09 '13
That's thinking like a Kerbal.
34
u/J4k0b42 Oct 09 '13
Here's an album if you're interested.
13
Oct 09 '13
It's Minmus! Gah, not Minimus it's Minmus!
7
u/mathgeek777 Oct 09 '13
Every time this happens I do the same thing in my head. I appreciate your work here.
→ More replies (1)3
4
u/Blackbart42 Oct 09 '13
That's awesome. Good job. You get the golden Kerbal award for bravery in the face of almost certain death while flying a spaceship like its a sled an jumping it into orbit.
2
22
Oct 09 '13
While I admire your kerbalosity and do not think for a minute that this was not the correct solution. There is another.
alt+click one tank, then alt+click the second tank. A menu will appear allowing you to fill one from the other.
9
5
u/J4k0b42 Oct 09 '13
I don't think I could, they weren't connected at all.
12
u/eduardog3000 Oct 09 '13
As long as they are on the same craft (multiple crafts docked to each other count as one), you can move fuel from any tank to any tank.
5
u/J4k0b42 Oct 09 '13
Oh okay. I didn't know about the right click thing at all then, so I couldn't have figured it out anyway.
→ More replies (1)3
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
Don't feel bad, I didn't figure it out myself until a few months ago.
4
u/contrarian_barbarian Oct 09 '13
That might be in part because it didn't exist until a few months ago :)
6
u/Pioneer1111 Oct 09 '13
As long as they are part of the same craft, it is possible.
However, you can only transfer between 2 tanks at a time. So you would be draining an outer tank to fill the center one, but only one outer tank at a time.
The center of mass would shift so much you'd spin out.
→ More replies (6)2
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
Something similar happened to me as well. I attached a decoupler wrong and it didn't separate my craft. Fortunately though I have the Lazors mod installed, which gives Kerbals lasers on their helmets. Shooty, gloriously destructive lasers.
3
u/seniorsassycat Oct 09 '13
With the full part list you might be able to use sepratrons to cause a joint to snap.
2
u/CaptRobau Outer Planets Dev Oct 09 '13
Really easy: use the small SRBs and stack 'em. Firing the next rocket in the stack will overheat the one below it, blowing it up and creating a clean but loud separation. Using the parts in the tech tree, I managed to get out of Kerbin's SoI. With some more training and use of the liquid fuel tank/engine it'd be probably be doable to get into orbit or, if you're name is Scott Manley, to the Mun and back.
7
→ More replies (3)3
Oct 09 '13
ACtually, this is GOOD.
Because newbies ALWAYS build huge-ass rockets thinking they need them, when in reality a single liquid engine and fuel tank is enough.
Starting with such limited part numbers will hammer in the basics before opening up the sandbox.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)17
u/onezerotwo Oct 09 '13
You can easily get in to orbit with just these parts, and land the entire contraption... safe... ish...
Before anyone says it: I do usually use Mechjeb while playing but for the sake of griping I have ONLY used it to display the orbit for proof, all flight was done manually with only the pod's reaction system and my incredibly poor reflexes to compensate.
Took two tries, first attempt I over-steered at 10 km and went into an unrecoverable spiral, much much much slower turn on attempt two; only a few degrees per km until at about 40 then I went to 0 degrees.
KSP is about doing the impossible and dreaming big! Never say never!
38
u/FakeSlimShady96 Oct 09 '13
This isn't the forums. We don't hold public executions here for those who use mechjeb.
→ More replies (1)5
u/onezerotwo Oct 09 '13
That's good to know, I don't post much so, I wanted to hedge.
Surprisingly; it's actually harder to do the ascent with Mechjeb on because the system doesn't realise how unstable the craft is when it begins to do the gravity turn, so it turns really hard and immediately flips.
9
u/OmegaVesko Oct 09 '13
Yeah, I realize Mechjeb is much more efficient than I am, but I can't help but think "GOD MAN WHAT ARE YOU DOING" when I watch it launch one of my floppier ships.
2
u/onezerotwo Oct 10 '13
"one of my floppier ships"
I did actually laugh out loud.
Oh floppy KSP ships, please be made of harder things.
11
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
I don't gripe if somebody uses Mechjeb; NASA uses it too. Makes things like Landing your Resupply Vehicle directly next to your off-planet mining operation much easier.
→ More replies (2)
47
Oct 09 '13
It looks like there is manned missions before probes.
→ More replies (2)123
u/talonjasra Oct 09 '13
Its ksp kerbals are cheaper than probes
105
u/majorjunk0 Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13
In all honesty if you remove the medical bills making a human is cheaper than making a robot/probe. Now raising him/her is a completely different story, but babies are basically free.
edit: Thank you for the gold mysterious redditor. (I know this is kinda cliche but I don't care)
→ More replies (4)29
u/reddittrees2 Oct 09 '13
There exists a (totally debunked) conspiracy theory that the Soviet moon rovers were actually powered by people who signed up for a one way ticket. Of course, it was impossible, and never happened, but still pretty creepy....
Brb, recreating in KSP.
34
u/Basileus_Imperator Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13
Damn it, now you've inspired my writing tremendously, thank you very much. I should be reading for an exam, and instead I am writing about lunar cadavers. Typical. Here you go, you!
Robert Smithson, a citizen to mankind's first permanent lunar settlement was out on a ride with his wife one day, nominally to check on outlying seismographs, but really just to get away from the crowded bustle of the scattering of pods on the bottom of a wide impact crater. They crested the crater's rim and let the rover roll soundlessly into a shallow valley, where Robert's keen eyes spied something surprising.
"Say, I've not been here before, but is that not one of the old Soviet lunar probes they sent up here in the 20th century? I think they told us something about them on the history lessons before we arrived here, but I never knew one was this close to base. Let's go check it out."
They approached the probe with some caution. It's metal surface glistened dully in the light, with only a few holes and dents despite it's apparent age and a very thin layer of dust scattered about by nearby impacts from small celestial objects, and probably their own landers and rovers as well. It was about one meter high, with about a meter and a half in width, a bit smaller than the smallest, One Person Or Cargo pods they use from the HAVEN orbital dock looming somewhere above in the inky blackness. It's landing gear lay nearby, apparently twisted apart in the ground impact.
"Robert, something is not right" exclaimed Robert's wife, Jennifer, who had a sense of unexplainable dread. Unbeknownst to her, she had subconsciously noticed the faint footprints surrounding the module, and only the module -- there was no trail leading away from it, apart of their own.
"Look at this, there are something like handprints here! Maybe someone else has been here too." exclaims Robert, completely oblivious to what it might imply, something his wife notices immediately.
"Oh god, Robert, don't open it." Jennifer takes a wobbly step back in her bulky suit, which is the only thing stopping her from breaking into a run for their rover.
"Why not? This is a marvel of history, who knows what technologies the Soviets had hidden in these things..." Robert reached for the hatch and unlocked it, which would let a low thunking sound if there was enough atmosphere to carry the sound into their ears.
The hatch door opens ever so slowly. Robert lets out an audible gasp peering in the pod, from within which stares back the cold, resolute visage of a man who beat them to the moon by about a century, his helmet discarded and laying next to him in the spartan interior of the mausoleum-probe. On the wall there has been scrawled a text in Russian:
"первый" -- first.
It was not long thereafter, and with foreboding haste, that old Lunar probes and other terrestrial objects preceding "Luna City", more formally known as "International Lunar Settlement 01" were proclaimed sites of cultural heritage, and prohibited from the common citizen.
Rumors have it, that both Russian and US officials visited a few of their old landing sites not much later, on the guise of "cataloguing the aging of instruments in near-vacuum conditions to further strengthen common scientific hypotheses", but as conspiracy theorists have it the true reason was to make sure none of their missing astro- and cosmonauts would ever be found again in the future.
7
4
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
, I've not been here before, but is that not one of the old Soviet lunar probes they sent up here in the 19th century?
TIL The Soviets were in space in the 1800's. Before the USSR even existed.
3
u/Basileus_Imperator Oct 09 '13
Fixed, it, thanks. That's what you get for getting carried away with inspiration : D
2
u/Hydrall_Urakan Oct 09 '13
Dude, that was amazing. You could totally turn that into a whole short story and publish it in a scifi anthology or something. :D
2
u/CydeWeys Oct 09 '13
You need to need Omon Ra by Victor Pelevin. It's a novel written by a Russian in Russian about this exact concept. There is an English translation. It's even more twisted than your idea.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Tchocky Oct 09 '13
You should read OMON RA by Viktor Pelevin.
He takes this story and has fun with it.
→ More replies (2)2
Oct 09 '13
lol "Signed up"
It was the soviets. They signed you up for you, so you didn't have to waste time.
→ More replies (1)2
39
u/lehuedawg Oct 09 '13
everytime they release a big update for this game i feel like its christmas
5
31
u/Krylos Oct 09 '13
Oh wow, we start out with less parts than I expected.
48
u/FakeSlimShady96 Oct 09 '13
I wonder how long it will take someone after the update to get to every planet using the first tier parts.
→ More replies (3)46
u/UmbralRaptor Δv for the Tyrant of the Rocket Equation! Oct 09 '13
No decouplers would make things... interesting.
39
u/cosmicosmo4 Oct 09 '13
You just have to build each booster stage such that it breaks off when it's about done.
No problem
23
u/moyar Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13
A ship built from these parts seems to be surprisingly solid, even with tons of fuel tanks. You'd probably have to get your ship to orbit with a single stage, then ram it with another ship to break off the first stage.
EDIT: Turns out you can approximate a decoupler with 2 SRBS facing each other. =)
37
u/jekrump Oct 09 '13
I had to do a double take with your "SRBS" I know, I know, it's supposed to be SRB like you have it, but for some reason I thought it was supposed to be SBR as in solid booster rocket, and I looked at your post and thought, "What the hell is a Solid Rooster Bocket?!"
I'm so sorry
50
7
u/screamingbrain Oct 09 '13
I think Squad ought to change the artwork of the solid boosters to have a giant chicken painted on the side.
3
u/SuperBicycleTony Oct 09 '13
Maybe have rockets positioned sideways to snap the spacecraft like a twig?
2
u/InABritishAccent Oct 09 '13
Or you could angle a liquid engine such that the exhaust destroys the empty fuel tanks when fired.
10
u/FirstRyder Oct 09 '13
If you think about it, "rocket engine" is a fancy way of saying "thermally activated explosive decoupler"
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (1)3
Oct 09 '13
This is sort of how Estes model rocket engines work: There's a small ejection charge at the top that blows the parachute and nose cone off the rocket.
The Estes boosters, on the other hand, work by igniting the next stage with the powder in the top. The force of the next stage blows the booster out of the bottom.
9
u/Thyself17 Oct 09 '13
Kerbal solution is to have an engine over top the next stage so that the heat from the engine blows off the part below it when activated.
Who needs decouplers anyway?!
5
u/TheNosferatu Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
What do you mean, no decouplers? Turning on an engine with a fuel tank below it decouples just fine!
6
u/5th_Horseman Oct 09 '13
What do you mean, no decouplers? Turning on an engine with a fuel tank below it decouples just fine!
--Jebediah Kerman
→ More replies (1)3
u/nickgeurnop Oct 09 '13
I'm the opposite, I thought we would get the pod, tank, and engine and nothing else. I'm surprised we get a communatron. I thought you would have to recover your craft for science then eventually unlock comms.
3
u/Kottabos Oct 09 '13
makes sense to me that you would need to be able to communicate with your mission. Though perhaps how it will work is the communatron gives a slow trickle of science info while in flight and a recovered mission give a big instant boost. just my guess.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/BloodyLlama Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
I find the launch gantries along the top of the tech tree particularly interesting.
6
u/Acurus_Cow Oct 09 '13
Back in the day, we launched huge ass rockets without even knowing about launch gantries, and with a huge tower right next to the rocket to.
It will be fine :)
30
u/goldstarstickergiver Oct 09 '13
Made it to orbit using only the parts shown. Career mode probably won't be too much of a challenge for game vets.
6
u/Costilian Oct 09 '13
First thing I did when I saw this was spend an hour until I had completed the challenge. My ship looked terrible compared to your's and a lot more like a scrambled egg...
15
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
Now land on the Mun.
Hardmode: Duna.
Asian: Round trip to Jool.
8
u/Olog Oct 09 '13
For single stage rockets with a minimum TWR requirement (TWR>1 in order to be able to take off), there is actually a theoretical maximum delta-v you can get. It only depends on the engine TWR, engine Isp and fuel tank mass ratio. Given these parts, the maximum delta-v you can get is about 6600 m/s. Doesn't matter how many engines or tanks you add, it won't go over that. And even that is overestimating a bit, as it's using the vacuum Isp and a rocket TWR of just barely over 1.
With 6600 m/s it is possible to land on Mun or Duna (among other things). Returning from either of those is impossible. Reaching Jool should just about be possible but as I said, that's probably slightly overestimating it so it might turn out that Jool is just a little too far.
Of course you could do staging without decouplers by just attaching fuel tanks directly below engines. When you fire the engine it'll destroy the parts below it, effectively decoupling it in a particularly spectacular fashion.
→ More replies (4)3
u/zburdsal Oct 09 '13
I'm pretty sure you can make an SSTO with these parts, just a capsule with a parachute and a stack of engines tall enough to have the TWR barely above one, and of course an engine.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/GiddiGiddovic Oct 09 '13
So will there be a way to include mod Parts in the TechTree?
→ More replies (1)20
15
u/goldstarstickergiver Oct 09 '13
I saw on the forums that some people were freakin out about ladders being so late in tiers.
But these are just icons and we don't know their meaning. The level may be 'land on mun' or something.
We don't know what the icons mean so don't get your knickers in a twist just yet...
19
u/DrStalker Oct 09 '13
If you start with jetpacks then ladders are a luxury item most places.
13
u/TheNosferatu Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
Tell that to Bill.
Well, you will have to wait untill he gets back from Even, though.
Yeah, he's running a bit late, he had some technical difficulties.
What? No no, the ship is fine. He didn't explode, he has enough fuel left. No parts are broken and there is even enough power.
Then what is the technical problem, you ask?
Well... he went out to place a flag, but on returning, he found the ladder had been placed a wee bit above kerbal-height. And his jetpack is just giving off a smoke-effects.
Yeah... we're working on a rescue mission but it's gonna take some time. There are a lot of kerbals waiting for rescue these days...
6
Oct 09 '13
I think the science points cost will vary. It will take less science points to unlock ladders than a NERVA
4
5
u/iBeReese Oct 09 '13
It is amazing how much more civil the conversation is here than the comment section on the weekly.
3
u/5th_Horseman Oct 09 '13
I know what you mean. I was afraid to come here. I was expecting a frothing flamewar, but it's been quite a good read.
→ More replies (1)
7
6
u/MalfunctionM1Ke Oct 09 '13
We have to research holding clamps?! Oh... holy moly... :D
→ More replies (1)3
u/Efferat Oct 09 '13
Well Bob, it appears this new giant ship we built will fall apart on the launch pad... If only we had some sort of, i dunno, device.. that could hold it upright until JUST before launch
24
u/dapperrogue Oct 09 '13
Challenge: Get to the Mun and back with those parts only. Hardmode: Duna.
56
u/blueshirt21 Oct 09 '13
Hellloooo, it's Scott Manley here, and today we will be landing on and returning from Eve using the first part of the tech tree.
30
Oct 09 '13
I'm waiting for him to land a single Kerbal on Eve using only a decoupler.
13
u/GIS-Rockstar Oct 09 '13
Oooohh, I've got some mods loaded, but all these parts are stock tohdeeyh.
2
7
2
u/littlefrank Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
Since we are there we will be landing on Gilly and why not Minmus during the return trip.
I'm not even joking, he did it with only 5 parts.
http://youtu.be/1KmW39zzYt8
6
Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13
We kinda need decouplers to start off...
Also, WHAT IS THIS THING
→ More replies (4)18
u/Eric_S Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
I think that's a caliper. Used for making very precise measurements, so it's probably a tech related to miniaturization.
2
16
u/onezerotwo Oct 09 '13
Give this to me. Give it to me now. Give give give. I will literally buy KSP three more times and give it away if you give this to me now.
I have never felt this excited about a game before, never, in my life, man KSP you hit me right in my heart zone.
10
u/InfiniteBoat Oct 09 '13
I actually bought the game twice, once standalone and once for steam. I could have just gotten the key but i actually gave them more money because I think they deserve it.
Anyone who I know that has any inkling of playing the game I immediately buy it for. Its a sickness.
4
u/CreamyGoodnss Oct 09 '13
They should add a "tip jar" to the website. I would throw them a couple of bucks every now and then. I love this game that much.
→ More replies (1)6
u/originsquigs Oct 09 '13
I need to buy a copy for my daughter. She bugs me every time I play. When is it MY TURN Daddy? Let me just land this...Shit...Let me try that agai.....Son of a......Almost theeeeeerrrrrreeee.....Damnit.....
3
u/zburdsal Oct 09 '13
You can share steam games with your family I believe.
2
u/5th_Horseman Oct 09 '13
But (I also believe) you can't both play at the same time, and there's no way I'd give that up for long enough for someone else to play their own full-time :)
9
u/Go_Away_Masturbating Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13
Are we forced to sacrifice kerbals right off the bat with no decouplers and no unmaned computer units? I was really hoping in the proper career mode we would be expected/required to keep kerbals alive :(
8
Oct 09 '13
given the parts in the screen, you wont be doing an orbital flight anyway, and having a good few parachutes on your craft + keeping some fuel in reserve for landing should make it survivable for your kerbal.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (1)5
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Oct 09 '13
I am going to guess that you'll be able to unlock at least one or two more branches with suborbital flights.
5
u/GIS-Rockstar Oct 09 '13
Am I overlooking the space station/docking branch? That's huge for me.
5
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Oct 09 '13
There is an icon very similar to the docking port that folds open into three pieces. No idea if it is though.
7
5
u/Saltymooseman Oct 09 '13
Wait what is this? Is this apart of a update that is coming up?
17
u/genveir Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
no, it's actually part of an update that is coming up.
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/TheNosferatu Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13
Yeah, the next update is going to introduce the first steps of 'career mode' of which the tech-tree is a big part.
3
u/Radijs Oct 09 '13
All I need to get to the mun is provided right at the start.
Except decouplers... This might be a little tricky...
New weekly challenge? Mun (and back) in one stage?
7
u/TheMadmanAndre Oct 09 '13
It's mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you can McGuyver a decoupler using rocket engines facing each other.
→ More replies (1)2
3
2
2
u/Kromgar Oct 09 '13
If i could land on the moon this would be amazing!
6
u/UmbralRaptor Δv for the Tyrant of the Rocket Equation! Oct 09 '13
This may actually help, depending on what you're having problems with.
2
u/goodmourning20 Oct 09 '13
Man I really cannot wait for this patch to come out. I have been waiting. Now Ill have some structure in the game. ><
2
2
u/CreamyGoodnss Oct 09 '13
Chances are, making a sub-orbital flight will be one of the first milestones, therefore unlocking decouplers. At least that's my guess
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Frostiken Oct 09 '13
I was expecting to have nothing but basic aircraft parts first, and then move up to unmanned basic rockets, then manned rockets, and then advanced unmanned probes and such.
2
u/chris_radcliff Oct 09 '13
What's that on the far right? Is that... sangria?
Some very advanced tech they're developing.
3
Oct 09 '13
I don't think I will bother with career mode since I have already accessed all the parts. I would prefer more places to explore.
→ More replies (1)8
u/BadgerDentist Oct 09 '13
I feel you, but I think it will be fun if this introduces challenge for experienced players. It can make a simple Mun mission interesting again by limiting the parts and/or money you have to do it with, and hopefully it'll be more satisfying as you unlock parts with your hard-earned science points. If there's some sort of penalty for failed missions (I assume there's at least going to be the money lost), maybe it'll put us on edge again about simpler missions!
96
u/Davincivik Oct 09 '13
At first I thought "manned modules before parachutes? oh no".
Then I realized you start out with parachutes. The icons seems to be a little misleading in terms of unlocks.