Ithicatic

KSP: 1.3.1 Problem: E-class asteroid shrinking in size every time the scene it is in is loaded. Mods installed: MechJeb 2.6.1 I'm posting this here because I have no clean save without MechJeb I can test this, but I'm fairly certain the issue is with KSP 1.3.1 and not MJ. Reproduction steps: Load a game with an asteroid that has an 8 digit seed. Go to the asteroid via the tracking station and save (asteroid should be proper size here). Load this new save, asteroid will now be resized and asteroid seed number will be changed to a 7 digit number. https://imgur.com/QdwsPuS Before load https://imgur.com/T3R0qVC After load No other characteristics of the asteroid will change (IE mass, resources, CoM stay the same), and any ships attached to the asteroid will act as if still attached even if they are far away from the new surface. If you release an attached ship and attempt to reattach, you will need to close in to the new smaller surface before attachment occurs. I have another E-class asteroid in orbit which has a 7 digit asteroid seed, but no resizing has occurred and the asteroid seed number is unchanged. Additional reproduction steps: Edit the asteroid seed in the persistent file and any saves back to the original number (in my case it was 46564590). Load the game and go to the asteroid. Check the asteroid seed in the persistent file, it should now be truncated (in my case it became 4.656459E+07). Saves should be uneffected at this point. Now save the game, then check the asteroid seed in the save files (in my case the asteroid seed in the saves also became 4.656459E+07). Load any effected save. Asteroid will resize. Check the asteroid seed number in the persistent file, it will have changed to a 7 digit number (in my case 9709125). Save files will continue to have the truncated number (4.656459E+07) until overwriten by saving after the resize. Going forward, all save files and the persistent file will retain the new 7 digit number (9709125) with no additional changes on reloading.

I totally read that as "dorked" for far too long.

I just tested this yesterday, and at least for the ruggardized wheels this bug has been fix. I didnt test other wheels, but I assume they work too. You have to delete the old wheels on your crafts/subassemblies in the VAB/SPH and replace them but brake torque seems to be working properly again.

I only use consistent designations for some ships and launch vehicles. Otherwise, it's pretty random. For ships I use: KIPS - Kerbal InterPlanetary Ship, for my interplanetary tugs. CTV for anything designed to move just Kerbals. LM or CTVL (Crew Transport Vehicle and Lander) for landers. Followed by the version then a ship name. So, for example, currently I'm using KIPS v4, and by tradition the first one I launch is KIPS v4 Thundercougarfalconbird. I have no good reason for that tradition, but it is a tradition none-the-less. After TCFB, I usually name them for the Orange Three (now Four), the US Space Shuttles, Kerbals I killed in memorable ways, or famous astrophysicists. And for launch vehicles, I start with a launch vehicle family name: NaSh - short for NASA Shot, designed around the size 3 NASA parts. MuSh - short for Mun Shot, designed around size 2 parts, (usually what takes me to the Mun for the first time in any save). OrSh - short for Orbit Shot, size 1 launch vehicle family. Followed by either the engine nozzle count or the stack count. So a NaSh with a Mammoth in the core stack and two boosters with Mainsails could be either a NaSh III (two booster stacks and a core stack) or a NaSh VI (six nozzles). I go back and forth depending on the save, but I maintain the same count scheme within each save. There is one exception: by tradition the first launch vehicle to get me to the Mun is named MuSh V. Because by sheer coincidence, the launch vehicle to get me to the Mun in my first three saves had 5 stacks and 5 nozzles. After that, it became a thing.

I attempted to launch Luke Kerman into orbit by first jumping off a rover which had launched itself off a crater lip. He came soooo close... but as soon as he ran out of gas, his expression changed to this and I knew. Didn't even need to look at the map to know he wasn't going to make it. He had this sad look of resignation all the way down and I couldn't stop laughing at it.

Developed a drop pod for my new rover/dune-buggy. It worked quite well, as long as I don't land on a hill.

Geofdin does not

I've got several mostly intact crashed ships, and one truly abandoned ship. Abandoning the KIPS v2 Endeavour was the only one I actually felt regret for abandoning.

I don't think I'm going up today...

Updated the two stage, 2-seater lander, seen here during atmosphere tests. Attached to each other via docking ports, so either can be replaced at will. 7,000 m/s delta v, split almost evenly between each stage.

My highest kill count "at once" was a rescue mission from the Mun. I had stranded 3 Kerbals there, and sent another 3 with a Hitchhiker to pick them up. The plan had been to parachute back into Kerbin and use my remaining fuel to soften the landing, as I hadn't added enough chutes. Incompetence ensues and I make it back to Kerbin interface with all the Kerbals but no fuel. I decided to attempt to save them by separating the hitchhiker from the command pod and have them parachute down independently and hopefully slow enough to survive. So I detach them just before 31km up and deploy the chutes on both. Except the chutes for the hitchhiker didn't deploy. I wait, and wait, hitchhiker is about 1.8km away from the pod now, still don't see them deploying. I switch over to the hitchhiker and find I actually didn't install chutes. Great so these 3 are dead, I think and switch back to the pod. Except it won't let me. I look for the pod... which has despawned because it was on rails below the despawn altitude. I get to spend the next couple of minutes cursing myself and the game as I watch the now lonely hitchhiker plummet to it's death. But the vehicle which has killed the most Kerbals was this guy: I took multiple copies to the Mun for each iteration, would run out of RCS fuel at way too high up, bail out and try to slow down using the EVA fuel before impacting into the Munar dust. Lost 12 Kerbals in those tests, one screaming green dude at a time.

They... they didn't all die on the same mission did they? It wasn't some weird Goldbergian sequence where Jeb piroette jumps into the science base, causing it to fall on the rover which is then launched through the flag, killing each memorialized Kerbal in turn? Was it?

I was inspired when I saw Rune's Tylo-capable lander, but I wanted to see if I could take it a bit further. I decided to try to make a two-Kerbal SSTO version capable of both Tylo and Laythe landings and returns (not necessarily in the same trip, I'm crazy not insane). It has definitely been an overstretch, but I've made some interesting landers out of the endeavor and I haven't hit a block just yet. Figure I'd showcase the evolution that occurred from each design. I've taken to calling them CTVL for Crew Transfer Vehicle and Lander. A note on making it for two Kerbals: I've come to agree with the old NASA philosophy of redundancy and that goes double when it comes to the little green guys themselves. My Kerbals tend to push their equipment beyond their limits while exploring and rarely survive the experience. Since I have permadeath on, having a second Kerbal that can stay with the -precious science- lander and get it back to Kerbin is a necessity. The SSTO requirement was attempted because rockets. This was my first attempt at a Tylo-rated two-seat SSTO CTVL (mouthful). It failed both the Tylo-rating and SSTO status, but I really liked the look. It does come close to being Kerbin SSTO rated though, with a delta v of 4,400 m/s in vacuum. OK, so not THAT close, but close enough that I decided to use it as a base for making a Kerbin SSTO-rated lander. My GrassKropper CTVL, taking inspiration from both SpaceX's Grasshopper and the bottom stage of Rune's Tylo lander. It has 2 full science suites, seats two Kerbals, plenty of docking capabilities, fairly decent control, and has a delta-v of 4,900 m/s. And it doesn't look half bad IMO. I've launched it to LKO, landed and taken off from both the Mun and Minus several times, and landed it intact on Kerbin (with lots of refueling, of course). I'm definitely proud of this one. The one drawback is the height, which makes it easy to topple when landing. I attempted to shorten the GrassKropper a bit, resulting in the FatBoy. I'm not proud of this one, I was hoping to keep it leaner. Like no wider than the GrassKropper. Instead, it has love handles. Plus it only has 4,500 m/s delta v, 4,600 m/s if I take out the RCS fuel. I started trying to trim some of the fat from the FatBoy and GrassKropper, so I could hopefully make the former thinner and the latter Tylo-rated. The GreyHulk seen here was my best attempt at replacing the Mk2 Lander Can with something lighter without losing the two seatedness. (That is too a word. Shaddup.) After the GreyHulk, I gave up on making the lander an SSTO. With the GreyHulk crew section, and a couple of other changes, I could get the GrassKropper to ~5,500 m/s delta-v. To get more would require scaling back the crew size and/or science carried and it still wouldn't be enough. Instead I started making a two stage lander more like Rune's Tylo lander, using the GreyHulk crew compartment as a base. This, called CopyCat, is where I stand currently. (Maybe rename it to King? I mean, those tanks kinda look like a crown. If you squint.) Total delta-v is barely 6,000m/s, ~3,900 in the top lander and ~2,100m/s in the second. Decent TWR on both stages too. It is Tylo AND Laythe capable, at least according to the math. (yes that means I haven't flown it at either body yet. Just trust the math. Trust it.) I'm still hoping to get it to 8,000m/s delta-v, mostly through the second stage, but I'll be happy with 6k. Part of the problem with delta-v I'm running into is it's hard to add a significant amount while keeping the same width and close to the same height as I have now. I'm restricting it that way purely for aesthetic reasons. The aesthetics as a whole need a tune-up, at least to my eye. I'm also going to replace the decoupler between stages with a pair of docking ports. That way they can be lifted separately and I'd only need to replace the bottom stage if/when I have to eject it. CopyCat is also opening up a possible 3-stage lander. The crew compartment has a natural division from the rest of the top lander. I'm considering making the crew compartment an independently engined (again, totally a real word) stage, with a pair of junior ports connecting it to the top lander stage.

This was the main reason I installed MechJeb. So I wouldn't have to switch between map view and stage view. A few of mine: "Is my rocket getting shorter?" Right before the nearly empty boosters push the first stage through the rest of the rocket like it was tissue paper. Because I forgot to strut it up properly. Again. "Isn't aerobraking supposed to slow me down? -10m/s hardly seems like slowing down." After hitting Duna's "atmosphere" too high and not getting enough drag. That was on my first station delivery to Duna orbit resulting in burning ALL the fuel, including that meant for the fuel depot, to get capture. I didn't even bother to assemble the station, just left it there after renaming it KSS HUGE Mistake. "Wait, the engine cut out? But I still have fuel left..." Just before realizing I have a no-crossfeed part between that tank and the engines. Typically said during descent, preferably close to the surface at high velocity. "I know night-side landings give me trouble, but this time, THIS TIME, it will be different! I can do this!" I can't. *Stage, hilarity ensues* "Well, that's not supposed to happen." It's always something, I swear.

Jebediah never dies. He's always just Missing In Action.