Talk:Kerbal Space Program

Improve this article to GA and get a BARNSTAR!

Fazbear7891 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A need for new pictures

The Kerbal Space Program page could use a better feature image. The current image (the screenshot of the rocket - file titled KSPscreenshot.png) is nice, but I think to keep consistency with other video game pages, an image of the game's official title/logo/insignia would be better suited (at least for putting next to the introductory paragraph at the top). We could still use the current screenshot of the rocket, putting it further down - probably on the Gameplay section of the page. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The official logo of the game is now the feature image of the page. Additional screenshots of gameplay mechanics should be added to improve the article's quality. They would be much appreciated. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just keep the current picture for now. Though it is old, the screenshot still is accurate. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, since the article's on a low-priority for now, there's no dire need to get newer screenshots presently. We can fetch newer ones in the future as the game continues developing. In that meantime, I had re-added KSPScreenshot.png to the article. Thanks for providing that, by the way! GabeIglesia (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Although this thread is old, I added a picture of Jebediah and Valentina. File:Kerbals - Jebediah and Valentina Kerman.png --Fazbear7891 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Version History

Is the 'Version History' section really needed on the page? Perhaps an external link to a page containing it would be better, or at least perhaps toning down the colors on the page would be better. Scruce (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Mün - not the Mun

I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't know how to edit the captions of an image, but it should be written 'Mün', not the Mun. It's like if you were to call Earth's moon - Luna - 'the Luna.' Also, the accent on the 'u' makes it pronounced 'Moon.' Get it? ;)

Never mind, I got it. I think I corrected them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panichio (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope I didn't sound too amateurish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panichio (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is Mun. That's what it is in the game. 174.59.63.6 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it isnt. before we start an edit war, look into the game again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.119.31 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

kerbalspaceprogram.com has this entry supporting "The Mun" rather than just "Mun" or "Mün": "Apr 23, 2014 - Video Wednesdays: Munar 1 ... Based on the true story of PuffballsUnited's first attempt at landing on the Mun, MUNAR 1 is a charming take on a conversation between a...  Read more" --Treekids (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming isn't consistent. Sometimes it's Mun, sometimes Mün, and sometimes the Mun. A source will pretty much always grant you one of these. Anybody can get a source that says one of these things. Best to just say 'Mün or Mun' in the article and get on with it. Ingame, it almost always says Mun, however. Don't know if that changes anything as Mün is popular outside the game. SpeedyAstro (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The starting menu screen shows a vessel with "Mün or bust!" painted on it, but the game doesn't support a complete charset for textual data. There's no agreement on the matter. Myk (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Necessary expansion

I've overhauled the article a bit to be more in line with the guidelines for video game articles (WP:VG/GL). However, as I've never actually played the game, I can only contribute in a limited manner. I may have gone a bit overboard with the amount of problem tags I added, but they're a good place to start if you're looking to improve the article. The gameplay and development section definitely need to be expanded, with the development section including the technical aspect of the game's development, pre-release development, and notable(!) version milestones. The reception section needs many more quotes and specific attributions. In general, the article should read a bit less like an advertisement; I've tried to tone that down. And finally, links to wikis should generally be avoided (WP:ELNO, so if a link to the Kerbal Space Program wiki can be substituted with a link to a more reliable source, please do so. Knight of Truth (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You did go overboard. The existence of a modding community is self-evident. 70.172.214.70 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should mention MechJeb in my opinion, which is pretty much a feature of the game to most people. 64.251.57.9 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just majorly overhauled the article. I've also added MechJeb as referenced above. Spikitiger (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiplayer

The section stating there is not going to be any multiplayer is somewhat incorrect. In the earliest stages of development it was stated that multiplayer would not be added until after the game is completed.

That being said, it is listed on the "What not to suggest" page on the forums as "Will not be in the game"[1], but upon contacting the Kerbal Space Program information address they repeated "It has not been decided when this will be added to the game". I am awaiting further clarification.

Here is the email I received from info@kerbalspaceprogram.com 7/26/2013:

"Hi,

Slow down, as you said, it may be implemented sometime after the final release, which hasn't happened yet (and is still pretty far). We haven't officially discussed anything concrete about multiplayer, everything posted on the forums are just user's opinions, speculation and gossip.

Best regards, KSP Info"

Which seems to contradict the thread at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36863-What-not-to-suggest Leonassan (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

There is some form of Multiplayer using mods (like DMP, Dark MultiPlayer) or the good old pass-on-the-save-file. 80.6.22.83 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Adding a link ?

Hello ! Sorry but I have zero fluency with editing wikipedia pages, I just saw XKCD mentioned KSP ( http://www.xkcd.com/1244/ ), would somebody think this is worth adding to the page ? No idea, so, well, at least I mention it in the Discussion area. Greetings everyone ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.147.158.9 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:XKCD Jessica Ryan (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There might be a good argument that this would be an appropriate mention of XKCD, on the basis that a substantial percentage of KSP players may have first heard of the game through XKCD. Myk (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in what can be modeled

While propellers can be created in the game, saying you can make a Blackhawk, let alone an Osprey, is patently ridiculous, due to the lack of axel mechanics, which mean that, while there are approximations, a V-22 would fall out of the sky when you have to swivel each wing individually. Therealpirateblue (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Detailed article at Polygon.com

http://www.polygon.com/features/2014/1/27/5338438/kerbal-space-program Chris857 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Atmospheric friction?

In the last line of the "Gameplay" section, it notes that Squad will add "damage from atmospheric friction", but shouldn't it be "atmospheric shock heating" or something similar? Mythbusters844 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Squad are referring to it as "reentry heating"[2] Myk (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Overly Detailed

I think the Overly Detailed tag could be removed soon, since Mnethercutt's removal of "Planetary bodies", "Easter eggs", and "Mods" and Metnik's removal of "Inaccuracies" have probably satisfied the reduction of details. There's still some extraneous detail in the "Gameplay" section, perhaps. Hubcapp (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Overly detailed template

Do we really need this still? I've scanned the article and nothing in any of the sections seems drawn out, intricate, or out-of-place. I was about to go ahead and remove the template, but then I decided to gather consensus here. If we have another supporters, we'll get rid of it. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's better than the last time I read through it. Some unnecessary detail lingers, such as references to unannounced features and fanfic physics including "super-dense cores." DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've addressed both of those points. How's it look now? Myk (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed some additional detail which was sourced from the forum and wiki. I'm ok with removing the tag now. The physics section could still use some weeding. DPRoberts534 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

CNN using Kerbal Space Program for animations

It seems CNN at least are now using Kerbal Space Program for informational graphics, as per this piece on SpaceX (See from 2:42). Is that significant enough to be added to the page? Myk (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess not. i think it is not relevant enough to the article. i have seen only one article outside of wikipedia that uses in-game footage for non-KSP related usage, so its use outside of KSP-related articles is insignificant, and i wouldn't mention it. Fazbear7891 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

NASA SLS person expressed interest in KSP on reddit

I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the article on top of what's already there, but it happened. --Rose (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"good support"

I removed the word "good" from "the game has good support for game mods". Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Is it useful for a picture of a modded station to be in the page? Because some people will skip over the caption and think that those parts on the space station are in the game or if they are trying to find the parts of the station in different mods may cause an overload of issues. NHPluto (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the image because no other, at least featured, game article has the mods as a central point like this one. Minecraft Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 17:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and mention of console release date

RE: the infobox release date, I don't think that the "early 2016" date for consoles belongs there. "Released" is past tense, and implies that the game has been released for consoles. Not to mention, Squad in particular is notorious for pushing back internal deadlines-they originally expected to have the console port done by Q4 2015. I think changing the infobox line-item or removing the console release date entirely would do a better job of communicating the release situation. --159.191.192.32 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• How is removing information more helpful? Just state it's 2016, since that's what they clearly said. The "early" though, I agree doesn't have to be there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I'm fairly sure that not all of the soundtrack comes from Macleod and SQUAD's composers. I think some of it is from other games-I seem to remember some of the space music being from Dwarf Fortress or something. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Notable Updates"

Using the Good Article indie game page Minecraft as an example, this section is a big fat no.

Wikipedia is not a version history database; the article should go into detail on the added features, not the updates themselves. I do not believe that deletion of the section in its entirety is necessary, simply better integration. Thoughts? Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. I'm not entirely sure how I should that (and I don't necessarily have the time or patience to work on the article for hours on end) and I agree that the article as a whole is a bit janky and unbalanced. Perhaps two or three paragraphs, describing features added in prose-that is, without mentioning version numbers? While I'm a pretty big fan of KSP, I made sure to only include versions covered in external sources-I'm still kind of figuring out where the line is between thoroughness and excessive detail. Perhaps I shouldn't be working on a article for somehing that I'm a big fan of... Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to work on the article if you are a fan--I am a fan of KSP--as long as you can remain neutral. Your information is also perfectly valid. You, also also, don't have to integrate all that information alone, or at all; Wikipedia is a community-edited site.

I think the whole thing can be compressed to a smaller history section with some information about the first official release, to the possibly notably short beta phase, to the first official release and notable events afterwards. Just not detailed changelogs. Information about gameplay features should be used to improve the sections we already have on gameplay features; I don't know how good of a source change-logs are for this task, as they usually simply state the addition of a feature. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good-I will see if I can redo some of the article later. Luckily, the KSP devs are pretty forthcoming regarding details of features and programming, and will sometimes go into even more detail on significant parts of the game (for instance, this blog post about creating female Kerbals, or this one about upgrading the game to Unity 5) which can at the very least be mined for quotations, methinks. And while I now agree that a detailed changelog isn't a good idea, there are some sections that probably should be kept-the pre-development section is pretty notable in my view. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of maybe doing Alpha, Beta then full release, but I'm not sure... NHPluto (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

i went ahead and cleaned up the secion quite a bit, but i still feel like it needs a better prose. it had too many little factoids that really were not notable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

improvements for GA

i'm trying to get this article ready for GAN, starting with the section redo, and adding sources. also have an open request with the GOCE, but that usually takes time for them to get to it, so i'm hoping to have the article otherwise ready by that tiem. anybody see anything else that needs to be fixed/changed? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kerbal Space Program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Here's my review of the article! Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Let's start with an analysis of the sources, to check for reliability (per WP:VG/RS). This analysis doesn't take into account how the source is used, only the first glance of it.

• I noticed you haven't wikilinked any of the websites or publishers. This isn't required, but it's always nice.
• Archives are also great, even if the website isn't dead. Add a |deadurl=no when they're not dead.
• In the 6th source, it's currently got "Gama Sutra". The website is Gamasutra.
• In the 10th source, it's just got "pcgamer". It should be PCGamer with the publisher being Future plc.
• In the 12th source, there's no website or publisher name.
• The 18th source doesn't seem to reliable. Here's their about page.
• Ref 19 is unreliable. YouTube isn't a reliable source.
• Not sure about the reliability of TVTropes (ref21). Either way, this isn't fleshed out enough. It's missing everything except the title.
• Ref 22 is also YouTube, though the video is by Unity so I'm not 100% sure on this one.
• 23 is primary.
• Ref 24 is YouTube, again.
• Ref 26 doesn't seem reliable. Here is their about page.
• Refs 28 to 31 are all like the 4th dotpoint here.
• Ref 40 and 41 are primary.
• Ref 50 is missing the website parameter.
• Ref 53 isn't formatted correctly, it is similar to the pcgamer issues.
• Ref 55 has a big error on it.

Basically, there are a few that aren't reliable, and basically all of them need someone to go over them and add websites, publishers, and other parameters to them.

Lead

• It's missing a summary of the reception.
• Citations are unnecessary in the lead if the content is mentioned elewhere (which it should be, seeing as the lead is a summary of the article). See WP:CITELEAD.
• players direct a nascent space program Is "direct" the correct word here?
• Kerbal Space Program has support for mods which add new features, and popular ones such as those for resource mining and context-based missions have received official support and inclusion in the game by Squad. This is a mouthful. Could you try to cut it down?
• including NASA and SpaceX's[4] Elon Musk. If we're going to have a ref here, don't put it in the middle of the sentence. If we're referencing Elon Musk, why don't we have one for NASA? In my opinion it should be removed entirely.

Gameplay

• I see no mention of "common sense" in the supplied ref. Is this part even necessary?
• No source is given for Kerbals have shown themselves capable of constructing complex spacecraft parts and performing experiments to realize their scientific goals.
• Once built, crafts can be launched by players from the KSC "by players" is unnecessary.
• in an attempt to complete player-set or game-directed missions while avoiding What missions. Can you give an example? (see also: dotpoint 6)
• No source is provided for These planets and other vehicles can be targeted to view information needed for rendezvous and docking, such as ascending and descending nodes, target direction, and relative velocity to the target. While in map mode, players can also access maneuver nodes in order to plan out trajectory changes in advance.
• So here you explain what the missions are, but you've already mentioned how they play earlier. Maybe these parts should be reworded so that they go in the same paragraph.
• No source for Players may also set challenges for each other on the game's forums, such as visiting all five moons of Jool (the in-game analog for Jupiter), or use mods to test each other's spacecrafts in air combat tournaments.
• What is Karbonite? I haven't played this game before (besides a bit of the alpha). Try tp explain it in the article as you would to someone who has never played it before.
• and entirely user-assigned missions Huh?
• This mode is also frequently used to create replicas of real-life aircraft, rockets, trains, boats, and cars. Not mentioned in source.
• advancing "science" What do you mean by this? Is there a science skill tree? This part is confusing.
• Science gained on a mission must be received by the space port Again, what do you mean by this?
• Is it "Spaceport" or "Space port"? You've written it in both ways.
• This mode was designed to ease new players into the game and prevent them from getting overwhelmed No mention in the source of "easing players into the game".
• Put the sources at the end of the sentence instead of in the middle. It hurts readability, and unless it's a quote, it's not really needed. It also helps indicate that the rest of the sentence also uses the same source.
• all objects in the game except the celestial bodies are simulated using Newtonian dynamics. For instance, rocket thrust is applied to a vehicle's frame based on the placement of force-generating elements, and joints between parts have limited strength, allowing vehicles to be torn apart by excessive or misdirected forces. Unsourced.
• The third paragraph in Physics is all sourced to a YouTube video, which is unreliable. Throw in some secondary sources.
• The simulations are accurate enough that real-world techniques such as Hohmann transfers and aerobraking are viable methods of navigating the solar system. No mention of aerobreaking in the source.
• Aerobraking, however, has become a much more difficult method of velocity reduction since the full 1.0 release due to improved aerodynamics and optional heating during atmospheric entry. In-game atmospheres thin out into space, but have finite heights, unlike real atmospheres. Unsourced.
• analog Do you mean analogue?

Result

Sorry, but from just looking at the gameplay and the lead parts of this article, I don't see the point of continuing along into the other sections. This is not at GA standard yet, and would need a lot of work to get it there. Alongside this, there is still a standing cleanup tag under reception, which still applies. The reception needs a big expansion. Take a look at some GA/FA video game articles for an idea on what people look for. I'm quickfailing this because of these reasons (see dotpoint 3 of the criteria for quickfailing for more info). It's on its way, but I don't think this'll be at GA standard yet for a bit. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Kerbol

The name Kerbol is not used is the game, which only uses the name "The Sun". It was a fan term invertet before The Sun was named in the game and somehow stuck in the fandom. But this article should stay with the oficial material and therefore should not use the name Kerbol. Therefor I would requestt it to be removed from the article, but I don't want to to start an edit war. Otherwise, it should al least be made clear that it is a fan term, and not an official name. @Andy Dingley:, @78.94.53.130:: Could you explain why you put that name in the article depite it not being official? 78.94.53.130 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The term is in common use, therefore we should use it. The Kerbal wiki uses it as the canon page name for it. We will also have readers here looking for "Kerbol", and we ought to answer that search. I've no objection to you clarifying that with a footnote though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley. The term is used by video game-related reliable sources, as shown here if you search for "kerbal space program kerbol". Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

kerbal+space+program+kerbol returned no resultes in the search you linked. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gial Ackbar: Are you sure you are using the correct search engine? This direct search gave me a couple thousand results; this article even has "Kerbol" in the title. Lordtobi (✉) 16:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, with the new link, it worked. With the one above, however, it did not. Therfor I sugesst leaving the name Kerbol in, but make clear that it is a fan name, like I did in my newest edit. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You probably typed the search into the wrong search box (the correct one is the in the center). Your link leads to a search engine that only provides google.com links, which are blacklisted on the VG search engine. But yes, the current way of saying it is fine. Lordtobi (✉) 16:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Near parabolic trajectory 01.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we trim some fat here?

It feels like this is being written as the fandom page instead of wiki article.

Look at this paragraph for example: "As of version 1.9.1, the major celestial bodies in the game in order of their proximity to the parent star, the Sun, are Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo (respectively analogs of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, and Pluto). Community modifications are able to expand this planetary system to include analogs of the missing outer planets, as well as fictional bodies and faraway exoplanet systems. Moons in the system include the captured asteroid around Eve, Gilly; the two moons of Kerbin, Mun and Minmus; The singular moon of Duna, Ike; the technically unlimited "moons" of Dres (albeit with player input), being asteroids which randomly spawn in, called the Drestroid Belt by fans; and the five moons of Jool. The innermost is an ocean moon dotted with sandy islands, Laythe, the only moon to have an atmosphere and only other body in the solar system to have liquid water besides Kerbin; Vall, an ice moon; Tylo, a moon the size of Kerbin; Bop, another captured asteroid; and Pol, the outermost moon of Jool. Eeloo has no natural satellites."

The "Community modifications are able to expand this" was already stated in the previous paragraph with "Players may install mods which implement destinations...". I feel like the section on the moons of dres should be cut since it looks either outdated or just wrong (I have personally never seen dres with captured bodies nor have I seen anyone say anything about a "drestroid belt"), additionally it looks out of place since they aren't real moons. With the jool moons part it looks too in-depth.

If we implement a few changes we can skim it down to "as of version 1.9.1, the major celestial bodies in the game in order of their proximity to the parent star, the Sun, are Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo (respectively analogs of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, and Pluto). Moons in the system include the captured asteroid around Eve, Gilly; the two moons of Kerbin, Mun and Minmus; the singular moon of Duna, Ike; and the five moons of Jool. Innermost to outmost the moons of jool are: an ocean moon dotted with islands, Laythe, (the only moon to have an atmosphere or liquid water); an ice moon, Vall; a moon the size of Kerbin, Tylo; a captured asteroid, Bop; and the outermost moon of Jool, Pol. Eeloo has no natural satellites."

These of course are just my two cents Thedumbestone (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Scott Manley in studio.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)