As you know, Gary, I've long shared an appreciation for the well-thought-out, heavily-planned, checklist-fuelled method of spaceflight that I've seen you take on. For me, the planning and checklist writing is half the fun, and I'm content a lot of the time to simply sit and calculate missions and make up hypothetical scenarios which eventually become missions without lifting a craft up for months at a time - but then there's the part of me which occasionally just likes to pop and shoot and do something spontaneous.

Flying in space is the point of Orbiter to me, but there's a lot to do in atmospheric flights too. To plan out and run a non-space fight (for testing hardware or pilots) to me is just as much fun as planning and running a space mission because they're all part of the same goal.

Training is good to me if I'm gaining skills from it. With large times between missions, skills to reenter and land etc tend to get a little rusty, so it's good to schedule flights which reinforce those pilot capacities before larger, goal-oriented missions like ISS resupply or interplanetary / lunar missions - to me there's little difference, if I'm flying, I'm flying.

I have a heavy amount of stuff to do outside of the VSA world, with real life commitments to things like finding another job to jump to after mine ends, so I'm not overly concerned with missions being quite spread out. One of my preferred elements of flying for myself is that I work to a nice schedule which suits me, and there's very little pressure exerted on me to take time out to fly a mission. With a VSA run by and with other people, this tends to change to working to someone else's schedule, and a lot of VSAs disappear because their operators have different timeframes to other members, or forget that people have other things to do which have to take priority. I think it's a better approach to plan out the missions carefully, and when they're ready give something like a month's window in which the mission can be run, which then lands the pilot with a nice relaxed amount of time in which to decide to fly or not, as the case may be. Of course, if in the space of said month the mission can't be flown for whatever reason, the response of the others in the VSA is pivotal - it's not life-and-death, it's simulated spaceflight, and sometimes it sadly has to take a back seat - only you really know when you will be able to fly, so letting you define your own launch dates around whatever else is going on is perhaps the best approach. Large gaps between missions may not work for some, but IMO there's nothing stopping a VSA pilot from making up their own side mission and flying that personally while waiting for a new ISA assignment.

okay heres my thoughts:

1)I do like flying in space(the reason i use orbiter), Although atmospheric flights are still amazing to me!

2)Like everyone said earlier, yes. like fireballs 619 said, if people dont want to do the training, they cant join.
Also it would be nice to have a ranking system, where a lower rank does the smaller, easier missions. But after a while, and after doing some training, the persons 'rank' can increase.

3)This depends on the number of people in the VSA and how the missions are spread, i would say no to the question, but if there are many people, everyone needs a chance to fly a mission. Of course preperation is needed, we cant just assingn a mission and be prepared in a day. But months is too much time.

I'll take your questions in order, in case your organizing the feedback to better analyze it.

1. Are you only interested in flying in space?
   Personally, I am for flight of all kind. In the regular flight-sim world, VAs often simulate the whole airline, as I'm sure you know. Now, I'm not sure about the VA that you helped with, but the ones I'm acquainted with don't let newcomers and rookies fly the heavies right away. They're something to work towards and build up to, if you will. I think VSAs should be the same way, with the 'heavies' being actual spacecraft. I do see your hesitation, however, since Orbiter is primarily for spaceflight, and it's regular flying can be unrealistic at time. I'd say to definitely assign regular flights (say, cargo shipping to launch sites?), but also do something related to space to keep interests up. As the training programs in real space agencies do, perhaps you could put the soon-to-be Orbinauts in a simulation for the mission. I know this sounds strange, as it is a training simulation for a simulation, but it could only cover a specific part of the mission they need extra practice, as in docking. If you ram the ISS too hard, it's no big deal, because it's not a real mission.
   
   TL;DR Keep the real missions for the more experienced pilots, but have some cargo runs and training simulations for the rookies.
   
   
2. Do you want to take part in a training regime?
   Yes, yes, and another yes. If I were to join a VSA, one of the reasons to do so would be to get better and perfect (as if you can) my flying technique. If I just wanted to fly in space with an organized purpose, I'd join one of the various forum collaborations (OFSS II, REVIO, etc). One of the main things that sets VSAs apart is the fact that they have training you must go through. If people don't want to deal with that, don't let them join. Those types of people probably wouldn't be very good pilots anyway. That being said, doing simple training flights could become very monotonous for people who are truly proficient at Orbiter. If I wear you, I would try to make a workaround for those who you know to be good pilots; perhaps they wouldn't have to do the cargo flights, or they get bumped up on the flight plan. While that seems unfair, it's unfair to them (I think) to be subjected to boring flights.
   
   TL;DR Definitely have a training program, but with a workaround for pilots who are known to be good.
   
   
3. Is it OK that you might not fly in space for many months?
   Even this will sound like I am contradicting everything I have said so far, I'd have to say no, it wouldn't sit to well with me. While in real Space agencies, it can take up to a year from selection to actual participation in a flight, the consequence of failure is also much higher. Death. They must be subjected to months. In VSAs, not so much. I mean, if you fail a mission, that sucks, but you don't die from it. Multiple months of training for a VSA is a little too much, in my opinion, but it may be necessary. I mean, you can't have 20 astronauts lined up for flight, but only being able to fly 5 a month. At least with training they are occupied. While I don't like it, it's probably necessary.
   
   TL;DR If at all possible avoid months of training, but I can see why it would be necessary.

Question 1: No.

Question 2: Of course. If the training is good organized and not leaves me hanging in the air too often. It is not like I would expect any player to be a genius as teacher, I am none, I lack the patience for it. But if the whole VSA stands behind the one who does the actual lesson, it is easier to compensate such shortcomings.

Question 3: There is a world outside the VSA, you can't forbid me to do unlogged missions, or even do guest missions for another VSA, if they welcome me (Unless the VSA feels like exclusivity is needed)

Also having to wait for months is not bad, if this means waiting for months for a really good mission, and the time is full of planning and supporting the other players.

I'll stick to what I've (informally, secretly) implemented in OMP.

People fly with me because they want to and they trust me to supply flight plans, roleplaying, and mission control.

I don't need experienced skilled astronauts in the team, because I can teach anyone to do an orbital launch in 5 minutes flat.

Because there is absolutely no organisation I am free to implement whatever scenario I desire based on persons available, craft installed on the server op/clients' machines.

As such it is a dynamic aero/space environment where just like in the real world, you can't really dictate who comes and goes, it's all about managing assets (your regular pilots) and coordinating my/our flight ops with that of the newer OMP players. Newbies allow for the propagation and development of new ideas and talents and if I were to join a VSA I expect to train together with a bunch of redneck pilots who have no desire other than to learn at their own pace and support one another. Leave the real world command structure in the real world - I'm more than qualified to setup a better communications system myself.

"Earth Space Traffic Control" could be a VSA in itself but the truth is... I don't need or wish to have a formal organisation. Just fly, don't expect anything, be surprised when a video or fanfiction comes out the next day.

Ok, here are my 2 cents.

I'd expect a new orbinaut to first run through a couple of test flights. Increasing in complexity, like so:
1. Take off with an airplane from home base, do some traffic pattern circles, land again.
2. Fly a suborbital, non-ballistic route from home base to a nearby target. Let's say WIN->KSC. If necessary, you can already assign XR-like vessels here.
3. Do the same suborbital, but ballistic to stick your toe into the cold space the first time.

Then you can choose a bit of a career by means of deciding between near-future SSTO type crafts (X) or conventional staging systems (S). The first missions in this "careers" could look like this:
X1: Mission is to simply start into orbit and land again, testing the appropriate vehicle's features and capabilities. Without crashing or dying, ofc.
X2: Start to specific orbit, do some work there (release satellite, repair sat, take pictures, whatever), and land again.
X3: Start to specific orbit, deploy and assemble station parts
X4: Start to station orbit, rendevous, dock, supply...
and so on

S would be similar, just with different steps.
S1: Launch unmanned first stage tests, then second, third and so on
S2: Launch manned sub-orbital test
S3: Launch manned orbital test
S4: Mission with goal to achive (besides surviving )
and so on

Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with having to do test flights in atmo first for a couple of weeks or even months, as long as there is a reasonable justification for that (like outlined above).

For the work mode I can imagine a scenario-based mission setup with recorder-based feedback. Give it training-time (let's say scenario is submitted, 2 weeks training), gather feedback on it (like e.g. "MJD is a bit off, let's adjust it for launch-windows) and submit the final "test"-scenario with a more restrictive time-window (e.g. 4 days to finish this mission, preferably done on weekends). Of course the deadline should be discussable...
Then you can post results, mission reports and so on. It would be added to the orbinaut's log, and you can assign more advanced missions.

There could be a more complex, multi-user setup, too. It would be time-scheduled like so:
1. Mission is assigned to commander, commander launches into orbit and returns recording and resulting scenario.
2. Pilot is using scenario and does rendevous manouvers. Returns recording, scenario.
3. Commander docks to station. recording, scenario.
4. Specialist does payload ops (deploying, assembling, etc.). recording, scenario.
5. Commander undocks...
...

Of course it would be non-trivial to trace such a mission, but it is perhaps more involving for orbinauts.

An important point I don't know what to expect is the failure as an option. Besides honesty of participants, how should failures be handled? Simply log it, let it influence later missions, drop failure missions and start over?

regards,
Face

I wonder if ISA provides support for R&D projects.
Jarvis SC Developement Division would be glad to hand some of current projects in capable hands of ISA's test pilots.

I would be interested in joining such a VSA, but my piloting skills are not up to par. I think you're idea of a VSA is one of the best out there, as it provides structure. The logistics is half the fun!

Gotcha. And the site, thanks.

But it would be great when the multi-player matures to the level I think garyw may be envisioning.

I believe the idea of ISA is to be more like OFSS where the pilots are given missions, they fly them, then they give the finished scenario back to Garyw or whoever is organising the flights and not to use OMP to fly the flights and the ISA website is here

At first I had to scratch my head and wonder what this ISA was. Then I saw the XR2 visit to the ISS and clicked.

I built a base on the moon useing modules. I dropped them off the Arrow after flying from Brighton Beach. I got an mmu to pick them up and locate the ideal placeing, connection ect., and dropped them.
I exited to launchpad.
I opened the current scenario and took the lines that placed the new base (modules) and pasted them into another scenario as a permenent placement, building as I go. I suppose this is how you guy's are doing it.

But I do have a few questions...
VSA is that "VIRTUAL" Space Agency.?
Do you hope the multi-player, which I have yet to master in connection, will cater for your VSA dreams.? Would you need an independent server ect.

Where's your ISA website please.

You know how I love my checklists. My only hesitation in expressing interest is my somewhat unique schedule - some weeks I have lots of time, others not much, but I always keep one day a week free, which I could devote part of to ISA in planning, flying, infrastructure support (I do websites too, priddy ones honest), and the like. As I say I hesitate to concrete anything until I know for sure how much time I can put into it - there's a lot of things demanding my attention at the minute.

Will this be an OFMM lite-type thing? I'm sure the rest of the OFMM crew would be interested to hear what comes of this. (I think I've seen you poke your head into the OFMM forum at some points)

Anyway, best of luck to you!

Have the managers confirmed that the Range is clear for the proposed Launch Date?