Geoclasm

I want to build a space center on the Mun! Or on Minmus! I haven't really thought this through - it's mostly a foundation for the idea but here's a roughing - Cost based on various factors : Size/Gravity of the body ( The further the deviation from Kerbin the higher the cost should be ). Distance from Kerbin ( Closer = less expensive, more distant = more expensive ( Mean distance, not current ). Time for construction to complete can vary based on factors. Facility may require engineers while being constructed, and those engineers will be left out of play while it's happening. The higher the level of the engineer, the greater the effect of them on the time and cost of the center. You don't get to choose where the space center will be built ( static location for each body, for the sake of the programmers sanity - holy hell I don't even want to think about what would go into letting them be built anywhere ). You have to ship all the necessary whatever to the site on the body ( I have no idea what should be required to allow the construction of a Space Center on an Extra-Planetary Body ) Maybe allow players to build the facilities of the space center separately? ( Launch Pad, Research Center, Spaceplane Hangar, etc. Research Center requires a science lab, Spaceplane Hangar requires a tank of rocket fuel or something... I don't know. ). Space Center Facilities start at level zero ( same as Kerbin space center ). Cost for upgrades subject to same factors as the cost of construction. Research Center research costs are the same, but if you want you can "beam" unlocked tech from any space center to any other space center which currently does NOT have that tech unlocked to either just flat out give it to them ( if they are eligible ) or reduce the research cost. "Beaming" tech from one center to another could have a cost ( either science or kerbits ( or whatever the currency is officially called ) or both, as well as time ( all subject to the mean distance from the body to space center beaming the tech ). Extra-planetary space centers should probably not spawn Kerbalnauts ( realistic approach ). The Kerbalnaut complex can be populated by shipping kerbals from Kerbin to the center in question. Extra-planetary space centers can spawn their own Kerbalnauts ( fun approach ). Putting space centers on other bodies can unlock new missions! Putting space centers on other bodies can allow for collaboration between space centers to do stuff! ( For example, maybe a mission to ship a Very Important Kerbal from the Kerbal Space Center to the Mun Space Center. The sky is no longer the limit! Let's colonize the entire system!!!

If the designs were stored in the same way that vehicle designs are saved, then this would be no problem at all. Everything that players want to modify could even be stored in a special tier beyond the 1K science tiers which would allow players to design ( modify ) whatever they wanted and save them to that tier. Then, after paying the initial science cost ( and money cost if that option is enabled ) to unlock it, they could use it as much as they wanted could afford to.

Currently, to my knowledge, science has no end-game functionality beyond a resource used in the Strategies to acquire extra money or reputation. I think that it would be pretty cool if we could use science to tinker with the stock parts we have been given, something akin to : Edit engine attribute ( maximum thrust, ISP ASL/VAC, mass, resource burn rate, etc. ) Science/Funds cost of new custom engine could be proportional to how ridiculous you make your engine I.E. - Giving an Ion engine a thrust rate of 300 KN ( or an ISP ASL = ISP in VAC ) with no other changes to anything like, say, weight or resource consumption would cost 5,000,000 science This is just an example. Edit fuel tank attribute ( maximum available liquid fuel/oxidizer, maximum mass ( ultra sci-fi - our scientists have somehow figured out how to cut the mass of fuel in half without losing any efficiency! Rumors run rampant about the alleged use of 'black magic'... ), etc ). Same deal - Science/Funds cost of custom fuel tank would be proportional to the absurdity of your fuel tank - 1% mass for same level of fuel? ONE HUNDRED. TRILLION. SCIENCE. ( Again, just an example ). Science! - Customize attributes of science experiments ( Not exactly sure how this would work - maybe you could alter the mass to make it lighter, or allow a science experiment to be performed multiple times without losing the science value ). And so on and so forth. "But why don't you just mod the game to do these things?" Fair question. Not all of us are capable of modding the game. Maybe it's a time issue. Maybe it's a competence issue. Maybe we're just lazy. Maybe it's all 3. But the bigger point here isn't about allowing player to mod the game, in game. It's about finding another use for a resource after the player has completely unlocked the tech tree and has nothing else relevant to do with their science besides watch it accumulate.

It's kind of a pain to have to set thrust to zero so you can manually adjust each individual engines thrust limiter. I was thinking it might be nice to have an option that would allow you to incrementally increase or decrease each engines thrust limiter via an action group.

Okay to answer this question for myself ( and anyone else who has this problem ) the resolution is N-Fold Ctrl-F within the quicksave file to find your vessel ForEach vessel v.currentThrottle c > 0 : set c = 0 set vessel v.mainThrottle = 0 Save file and perform a quick load and your vessel should have no active thrust on any engine. This solution is offered as is and the provider bears no responsibility if your computer breaks escape velocity.

I have a vessel in which there are parts held in place by struts between a structural vulnerability. I quick saved, then loaded because I am not a smart man. Now the Twin Boar engine plows into the upper part of the vessel causing a catastrophic failure on quick load. FML. The only upside is it's remote-controlled, not crewed, so no loss of life at risk here ( except for robots - robot lives matter ). I'm looking through the rather lengthy quick-save file and it looks like to stop this tragedy I need to set the thrust to 0 - will that work? Where do I need to set that value at? ( I'm looking and seeing several entries with the name of my vessel attached ). If not, is there some other way? Am I totally screwed?

Yeah I'd thought about that but it would mean the complication of putting attitude controls and thrusters on the satellite and I'm lazy. So having the Kerbals on board won't interfere with completing the contracts?

I have two contracts for equatorial satellites around Minmus (in addition to a flag-planting contract). Is it possible to do all three in a single shot? (Launch a landing vessel with the two necessary "satellites" attached that can deploy the satellites at their appropriate coordinates, land, and have a Kerbal plant the flag)

nvm it works... i was using other numbers. Thanks.

Okay I tried this but the launch turn is always the same each time.

RCS are just a design decision. Sort of a "Just in case". Ocasionally you get a mission to adjust the position of a satellite, and since I plan to have these in orbit for a while, it may come up.

This. I think I will give this a shot - it looks the most promising. Thanks for the tip.

Alright thanks. I will look into those suggestions. The main reason I don't want to have a decoupler is not the force they eject with but I just don't want the remains sticking off the probe. At the moment I attached a side-mounted docking port JR and am using a cargo bay with a docking port stacked on two octagonal struts. It's... pretty unwieldy...

Given the following satellite which has no available stacking nodes, and to which I would really rather avoid attaching any decouplers (separators are okay) How can I go about storing this in a cargo bay to get it into orbit? The root is the RCS tank.

I figured it had to be I just didn't know how. Awesome - thanks.

I love this - is there a way to make use this to gravity turn into a polar orbit?

Don't be afraid to take easy missions early on - Test <thing> at launch pad/landed are good ones. Look at the parameters of ship components - I just recently learned that when you are building new rockets you can throttle back the burn of SRBs (which you can't do in flight). Knowing this would have saved me a lot of grief early on when I was trying to combine multiple missions. Combine contracts: Test this parachute in flight? Do any other contracts have similar parameters? Kerbin Surveilance Contracts SUCK HARD until you get access to supersonic (at least) fight, at which point they don't appear in the pool very often anymore. Make sure you read mission details. Satellite contracts are easy money... unless you accidentally take one for a satellite body on another planet.

There's this Mod that I use called PreciseNode which I love because it enables you to make precise modifications to a maneuver nodes parameters. Why is this relevant? Because I am looking for some way to precisely adjust camera angles when you are in orbital view such that I can more accurately line up things like Ascending and Descending nodes when trying to position a satellite in orbit to complete a contract. To my knowledge, the only way to adjust the AN/DN if the satellite orbit is to eyeball it, and the best way I've found to do that is to line up the AN/DN on the target orbit with the current orbit. This is quite tiresome when I have a standard mouse that lacks the ability to adjust the DPI and the keyboard input to adjust the camera lacks any sort of sensitivity adjustment (to my knowledge). I know this is a very niche thing but is there a Mod or something that I am missing in the game itself that would help me achieve this goal?

So it is legit and not a bug. Okay thanks.

I'm noting some extremely inconsistent (and extremely frustrating) behavior when it comes to trying to build (and close) a fairing around a Nose Cone (KSP Vanilla - No Mods). On occasion I succeed at closing the fairing flush with the nose cone like so : However on many occasions when I attempt to repeat this behavior, I get this increasing infuriating result : This is the EXACT. SAME. ROCKET. So... is the first picture a bug? Is this the expected behavior? What do I need to do to close the fairing on the nose cone?

I don't know if this is already a feature or not because I've just started building a Munar science facility. I just dropped off the Munar Buggy which I will be using to get around and collect all that delicious science but something occurred to me. Because I hate the Mun with a furious passion (So many failed Mun landing attempts), I decided to send a 1-way probe with the buggy, loaded with solar panels and batteries because better safe than sorry. Landing went smoothly, buggy was decoupled and is ready for use (sweet) but the containment unit housing the probe and it's batteries survived the landing!!! I was thinking how awesome it would be to be able to remove the pod from the containment unit (along with it's batteries and what not) for use with the future facility. Is that a feature? If not, it would be pretty sweet.

Okay I see what you are saying and yes that makes more sense to me... So basically instead you flip what I said on it's head and if you lock a Child (The ladder, in this case), the ladder, the rocket, and everything else up to the Root node gets locked. Yes, that makes a lot more sense.

No, what I mean is that if you had a rocket with a ladder on it and locked the rocket, the rocket and the ladder would both be locked...

No. I said that the feature would lock the piece in place along with all it's symmetry siblings (didn't word it like that). The feature should lock the following : Selected Piece Selected Pieces Symmetry Siblings Selected Pieces Child Components Selected Pieces Symmetry Siblings Child Components With the option to unlock (with a single action) the pieces child components and the pieces symmetry siblings child components. Implementing some sort of visual feedback (A red semi-opaque closed lock icon, for example) when hovering over locked components would aid the user, er player, in making good use of the feature. And of course if you don't want to use it you don't have to. Sorry to move the goal posts to invalidate your argument but... well, there you go. That's why Ctrl-Z doesn't fulfill this need. Besides that, Ctrl-Z can take a significant amount of time (and processing power) that would not be necessary were this feature implemented.

It's difficult to phrase this question... when placing an object using Mirror symmetry you can see the "mirror" in the way the objects are placed respecting each other. Is it possible to flip the "Mirror"?