lordcirth

You can stick a supply container (food/water) between the pod and chute. For more than that, or O2, you probably need a service bay. Universal Storage II is also great for this, but isn't updated for 1.12 quite yet. I've also stuck O2 tanks beside the engines, inside the fairing.

I believe you can disable the mk1 pod as a habitat instead of detaching it?

Just to clarify, Kerbalism calculates the number of ignitions simply based on how powerful the engine is, and whether it's a vacuum or sea-level engine: https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/blob/6fc4503048dd766d6d29aece9f167214bdfae24f/GameData/KerbalismConfig/System/Reliability.cfg But you should be able to override this in a separate file using FINAL. Create a file in GameData, eg raptor.cfg, containing something like: @PART[myPart]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]:FINAL { @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] { @rated_ignitions = 5 } }

Did the file ownership and permissions stay the same? Are both drives formatted NTFS? Any NTFS settings changed on either?

If you want the fix to be separate from the mod, you could make an MM patch to change useGimbalResponseSpeed instead.

Is there a difference in whether you use engine plates between the two?

Taking a quick look at the config and copy pasting relevant bits, something like this might work: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[#maxThrust,@atmosphereCurve]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]:FINAL { @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] { @rated_ignitions /= 2 @rated_ignitions ^= :\.\d+:: // Floor value to get an integer @rated_ignitions += 1 } } This will (hopefully) do vaguely what you want - halve ignition values, round down, add 1. That should leave 1 and 2 ignition engines alone, reduce 3 to 2, etc. I haven't tested it...

Yes, you need a pressurized pod to safely do the 30 day contract. You can see the comfort / projected stress in the VAB, in the Kerbalism tab.

The mk1 pod is not pressurized, so it will not lose atmosphere when you EVA. Other pods will.

The total mass of the ship at the instant KSP changes your status to "orbit".

Mods go in KSP/Gamedata

Had a weird issue with Cryo Tanks where selecting a foil tank would cause FPS to drop below 1, and the tanks had both foil and polyhedral textures. I reverted to 1.5.3 and the performance was fixed, but not the textures. (Reverting Core also didn't seem to make a difference)

Rescale = orbit size, Resize = body size.

In reality, you would probably keep the mass ratio the same, and increase delta-v, then remove a stage if possible. But that's too complex and specific for this rough estimate. It was intended more as a demonstration of how these efficiency gains grow exponentially.

Which, if you assume that each LFO stage is normally 2.5x the mass of it's payload (3.5x including it's payload), and you have a 10ton final payload on a 3-stage rocket, means that a LF/O rocket might be: 10*3.5^3 = 428.75t [1]. If you make all 3 stages cryo, your stage ratio is (2.5*.8)+1 = 3, so 10*3^3 = 270t. 63% the mass. The rocket equation adds up! (In practice you might increase Dv instead and go to a 2.5 stage design, but that's more complicated) EDIT: You can compute any hybrid, assuming there is no LFO stage above a cryo stage, as: (P*3^C)*3.5^L, where P is payload mass, C is the number of cryo stages on top, and L is the number of LFO stages below.

30% science sounds like an awful grind, why would you do that? (If you want to turn difficulty up, I recommend JNSQ).

Swapping the stock solar panel module for a Kopernicus one could do that, yeah.

That's a pretty broad question - generally just that they don't both try to change the same thing in different ways.

The part config actually specifies what tech node it's in, not the other way around. So as long as the node exists, a new part can place itself in that node. And UKS moves parts between nodes, it doesn't change the internal names of the nodes.

It's also licensed under the LGPL, so it would be legal even without explicit permission.

Try running "ckan gui", does it throw an error message?

I do use fuel cells occasionally after unlocking photovoltaics, because I play with Kerbalism, and the Materials Bay takes a ton of power for an hour, which is very difficult to provide any other way in a small craft. But by the time I get the mat bay, I've unlocked both fuel cells and PV in either system, so it doesn't really matter.

Launching craft that both have the delta-v to go long distances, and re-entry capable, then throwing them away again, is inefficient. You can have nuclear-engine craft that do deep-space missions, and refuel them at stations. Either refueling from ISRU or Kerbin. For example, a mining base on Ike + a Duna/Ike station that you use to refuel Duna craft for landing and returns.

Stations can be used to refuel spacecraft.

So long as the node the part is in still exists *somewhere* in the new tree, the part will be put there. The node information is in the part definition, rather than the other way around.