thereaverofdarkness

I thought Kerbol was an F-class star. It certainly looks like an F-class when viewed from up close.

I think there should be a radar altimeter module that you have to attach to your craft to get a reading from it. Some landers, like the Mk. 2 Lander Can, may have an altimeter built-in on the inside.

I love everything that is happening to KSP thus far. The new aerodynamics overhaul for stock that came with the full release was overdue but extremely welcome in my opinion. It comes with its issues, however, and those will just have to be worked out with time, trial, and error.

Thanks!

I haven't encountered any of this in any versions of stock KSP, however I did experience a strange bug the first time I used FAR in which it would devote torque on the vessel toward trying to spin out of control. People said I just didn't understand the aerodynamics, but I discovered that my vessels would work much better if I disabled torque and RCS completely and relied entirely on lifting surfaces and control surfaces to determine my orientation. When I tried FAR again on a different computer and different version of KSP (both times during alpha) it worked fine.

it won't let me select the correct prefix KSP Version: v1.0.0.830 Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601) 64bit What Happens: When a Kerbal is forcefully ejected from EAS-1 external command seat, they count as debris and cannot be operated. You cannot move them or return them to the seat. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Steps to Replicate: 1) Make a rover with wheels and an EAS seat that can go pretty fast 2) Put a Kerbal into the EAS seat 3) Get the rover going about 10m/s and roll it 4) If you roll it right, you can eject the Kerbal from the seat due to the impact without destroying the seat or the Kerbal 5) An alternative way to eject the Kerbal is to invoke the Kraken by putting a reaction wheel on the rover and attaching the rover between separated stacks on a craft, with barely enough room for the rover. Detatching the rover can cause it to get stuck between stacks and cause phantom force from the torque force, possibly separating parts of the rover such as the Kerbal from the EAS. I provided a craft file plus instructions in the bottom section. Result: Sometimes when Kerbal has been ejected, that Kerbal cannot be operated and is listed in the map screen as debris. Fixes/Workarounds: - avoid having EAS-1 receive impacts - avoid using EAS-1 - save frequently and re-load if Kerbal is ejected from EAS-1 Other Notes/Pictures/Log Files: Here I will provide a craft file that can easily demonstrate the phenomenon: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x8om1blo46leyi2/Rescue%20Mission%20%235.craft?dl=0 - load the craft file and remove the SRBs from the bottom - empty all but one set of fuel tanks, and set them to 10% fuel - make sure there is a Kerbal in the command pod - on the launchpad, with throttle at full and holding down the W key, you can tip the craft over - take care to bring throttle to zero once you have tipped it far enough for it to continue falling on its own - have your Kerbal get out and climb over the top of the craft (hold W to walk against the edge of the X200-8 tank to make F cause the Kerbal to step over it), then enter either of the EAS seats on the rover - decouple the rover - use the QWEASD keys to twist the rover out of the craft and onto the launchpad - this action alone may detach the kerbal - if Kerbal is still attached to rover when it is freed, disable the reaction wheel's torque and get the rover moving up to 9m/s, then re-enable torque and push W to flip the rover forward, which will slam the Kerbal against the ground The explosion sound is from the forward OX-STAT panel being destroyed Images: The first time I tried it, I managed to eject Jebediah from the seat and have him able to walk around. Apparently it doesn't always turn the Kerbal into debris, I'm guessing it does this at higher impact velocities.

Does anyone know the impact tolerance of an asteroid?

Autosaves seem basically useless because quickload only loads quicksaves, and exiting the game causes an autosave to happen, so you can never load any autosave other than an exit game autosave unless the game is quit due to an unhandled exception. There should be a way to load autosaves.

I think it'd be great to have a bunch of trivial info listed in the engineer reports. After all, the key lists an icon for such benign reports, yet I have seen very few of them pop up. Most of my rockets get caution reports only (usually things that are actually fine because I know what I'm doing). Also, I think the icon for the clamp-o-tron jr should be changed to better differentiate it from the regular clamp-o-tron as long as they are going to look alike. I'm an expert at this stuff and I had to memorize their position to tell them apart quickly because I simply cannot tell by looking at the thumbnail images which one has the rim. It isn't very apparent in the thumbnail. Another cool feature would be the ability to sort parts by the size that they are or the size they are built for. For instance, 1.25m size category could include all 1.25m cylindrical parts along with anything that has a 1.25m attachment surface (like engines and adaptors), modular girder segments, medium landing legs, AV-R8 and AV-T1 winglets, etc. Then anything that's meant for any size, like small science equipment or a lot of the radial-mounted utility parts, would also be listed. - - - Updated - - - From a top-down angle which obscures the rim on the medium, it looks almost identical to the small except for the size difference. The color of the basin is not a defining factor because it appears different at different lighting angles. The rim on the medium can easily make it have the darker basin.

I'd like to have two decouplers for each stack width, one thin and weak with barely any ejection force, and the other thick and powerful which sends your stuff flying apart. Then it'd be nice if there were stack separators with this new functionality in which you can decouple it from one side, and then the other side later. It'd be nice to have a second type of stack separator that would be composed entirely of a dissolvable adhesive, which when triggered would destroy itself, gently severing both sides with no ejection force and leaving no debris.

and here I thought Kerbals were supposed to be chimpanzee analogs. Occasionally I feel like a rocket of mine is safe enough to put in crew who aren't expendable!

I don't care for the option to warp, but the apoapsis icon needs to show when you're still deep in atmosphere because that is a useful tool for launching to orbit.

Thanks! =] I like shoving the materials bay inside in the center, then kind of arranging everything else small enough to fit around the materials bay. I also installed lights on the top so it's easier to see in there.

I didn't get that many rescue missions, but there was never a shortage of new crew until I filled up on non-rescue contracts that I wasn't completing and new contracts stopped showing altogether.

I think you're right. Another thing I've often thought probe cores should include are much heavier variants with greatly improved attributes like torque and energy storage. Those would be nice for saving on part count. I also heard someone suggest once that probe cores should have upgradeable navigation systems with tweakables: once you unlock probe cores with a higher default navigation system, you can choose to use that one on any older core as well, for a higher part cost. At 0.05t, the Stayputnik can be the lightest core, having no built in reaction wheel and only minimal battery storage. The 0.1t OKTO can finish the lineup for tiny and light probe cores, having a much different shape as well as a built-in reaction wheel. Then the HECS could be a small (1.25m) probe core with a similar shape to the OKTO but larger and heavier, at 0.6t. It would have much more energy storage and decent torque. The QBE could be about 1.25m and have a cargo bay inside, otherwise being pretty light (0.2t) and having low torque and energy storage. Its tiny cargo bay can be used to stow tiny science modules, batteries, or a tiny reaction wheel. The RC-001S could be the light 1.25m core--lighter than the HECS at 0.25t but would have moderate energy storage and torque, between the HECS and OKTO. The RC-L01 could be a lot like a 2.5m version of the RC-001S but with much better torque and energy storage, and a tiny bit of RCS storage. The OKTO2 will be greatly redesigned into a heavy duty 2.5m core, thick and with lots of energy storage, built-in photovoltaic panels, plenty of RCS storage, a strong reaction wheel, and a built-in cargo bay.

IIRC the Probodobodyne QBE was once only 0.03t mass, but now it is 0.07. The 0.03 made sense because it was very similar to the OKTO2 (0.04t), about the same tech level, too, but it gave up its advanced navigation systems to lose even more mass. At 0.07t without a reaction wheel, it's only useful if you like its shape and don't care about mass. But seriously, the OKTO2 is light enough for ultralight probes. I think what's really lacking in the lineup is an ultralight reaction wheel. Right now the OKTO, HECS, and RC-001S are tied for lightest probe core containing a reaction wheel, and they are each 0.1t. If you were to have a 0.03t probe core, you still have to add a 0.05t reaction wheel (smallest size) just to be able to control it. I propose the QBE have its mass at 0.05t and have only basic SAS plus a reaction wheel with a measly torque value of 0.1. On ultralight probes, that amount of torque can be more than enough. I would definitely like to see more variety in the probe core lineup. The Stayputnik can't be upgraded and so pretty much never gets used past the beginning of the game if at all. The OKTO and HECS are basically different tech levels of the same thing, and the OKTO2 and QBE add nothing of value to the lineup other than a difference in shape. The RC-001S is once again just another shape, and the RC-L01 is another shape with dead weight that raises the cost but not the attributes. Only the Mk 2 Drone Core is unique and special among the probe cores.

That's not a bad idea but I was using the design as a fully reusable lander. I collect the data and put it all in the crew cabin, and then leave it on the orbital station later. When enough science reports have collected up, I send a small disposable shuttle to take them down to Kerbin. That way you can take it down to visit a biome or two, back up to refuel, and back down to visit more biomes.

Role: land, gather data, return to orbit Minimum Tech Level: medium-low, less than 500 science total Optimum Tech Level: medium, less than 1000 science total Required Space Center Upgrades: R&D +1, VAB +1, Launch Pad +1 Cost: upwards of 50,000 Kerbin TWR (in vacuum): 1.7 to 3.6 Mün TWR: 10 to 28 Delta-V: ~2650 m/s Maximum Landing Angle: I estimate over 45º but have not tested it yet Difficulty of control: beginner Difficulty of docking: novice Difficulty of successful Mün Landing: novice Difficulty of construction: beginner Can land on: every body except Eve, Kerbin, and Laythe Best for landing on: Mün, Moho, Duna, Ike, Dres, Vall, and Eeloo This lander has high power and high delta-v, combined with easy construction, low required technology, and a very wide stance which makes it easy to land on harsh slopes! This lander is perfect for newer players to get started, and may also be a decent option for a more experienced player seeking easy surface trips for science. 50km parking orbit over the Mün, preparing for de-orbit burn Coming in for a landing on the other side of the Mün Reducing surface speed for final approach - this has such a high TWR that this part is pretty easy and efficient About to land After successful landing, we get out to do science! After we do science, it's time to lift off again for orbit Back to 50km parking orbit, with plenty of fuel to spare I am not going to provide a part file for this lander because I want you to build it for yourself. Your version should end up a bit different from mine, depending on the parts you have available as well as any other characteristics you'd like to build into your version. The key characteristics of this lander are as follows: 1.) the crew module holds one passenger, a scientist. Engineers are basically useless for this work, and we avoid the need for a pilot by using a probe core instead. 2.) the command module is centered and low to the ground 3.) the fuel tanks, engines, and landing legs are splayed outwards for a low profile and wide base 4.) the fuel tanks are centered on the center of mass, so it doesn't shift much as fuel is drained; the RCS thruster blocks are centered on the median center of mass as well 5.) ship has docking port, probe core, batteries, RCS storage (optional), RCS thrusters, reaction wheel, antenna, photovoltaic panels, and all of your available non-atmospheric science modules 6.) total fuel mass is a bit more than half of the mass of the ship You don't need the 2.5m service bay or the docking port sr., those I just selected because they work nicely and look cool. I like how the service bay consolidates all of my science gear for me. The large docking port makes docking slightly easier but really is unnecessary. I used the RC-001S 1.25m probe core, but the first option in the tech tree for this lander is the OKTO which has SAS capability but does not have other navigation tactics. I put the probe core on the bottom and the docking port on the top for easy docking to orbital stations, but you could swap the two to make it easier to dock with a ground fueling station by way of landing atop the fueling station. Landing on top of a fueling station is a rather difficult maneuver, however. Let me know what you think of my lander!

It's just easier to program it to assign a single part. Making the ships more complex either involves making a variety of mission derelicts, which either results in loads of work making many variants or a small list that gets stale quickly, or building an AI for putting these together that will have a tendency to make wonky and crazy designs until you tweak the parameters enough to prevent it from doing that. It's a lot more work but I think it can be done and I think it'd be worth it. Plus, that AI can be recycled for other uses: other space programs can interact with yours in more ways, with AI ships re-using the same shipbuilding AI to make NPC ships for you to encounter. I figured that parts you haven't unlocked would have decreased chance to appear in NPC ships based on how far away you are from unlocking them, and that you could use them the way they are installed on the ships you find but you couldn't put them on new ships until you unlock that tech. It's an interesting idea that you could potentially reverse-engineer them by recovering them, however.

I am kind of OCD and I approve of this.

I added some images to depict the derelict ships for each rescue mission. I built them along the lines of how an AI might build them: with somewhat randomly selected parts, primarily choosing parts that are a good fit for those they attach to, basic stacking or radial symmetry attachment, and covering the key design elements relevant to the mission. All simple designs that don't necessarily look pretty.

I was picturing it having the periapsis above 20km so that if you don't go to it right away, you can just let it pass over and catch it on another pass. It'll stay on rails until you get around to it. It could be fun, however, to have certain emergency contracts that would pop up and give you a short time span to accept and complete them, but it might fit better with KSP to simply act like it's urgent when it's actually designed to be fine on its own indefinitely until you get to it. The escape trajectory contracts could give you a lot of time till it escapes, and you can still go after it even once it is outside Kerbin's SOI, it's just more difficult. One way to make an escape trajectory contract a lot easier is have the ship heading toward Kerbin and give it a few days before periapsis, that way you don't have to chase it down if you act quickly. Another cool feature could be to have the ability to call other space programs to your aid. If you have a Kerbal who is stuck, you could pay money to have another agency attempt to save them. You might be taking a risk in that the Kerbal may be lost, and their ship will probably be lost, but it would be an easy way to get it done if you're feeling lazy and have lots of cash on hand.

Instead of leaving these Kerbals in a lone command pod each time, it would be interesting if they actually had a ship. It could be nice, furthermore, if sometimes that ship had some capabilities in it. Obviously it's out of fuel, or maybe it's not out of fuel but is out of power, and one way or another it's completely stuck on its own. But it could have a docking port so you could refuel it or haul it home, or keep it for yourself. A bit of ship variety would greatly improve the fun factor in doing these missions. Some rescue missions could have lower pay if they are easier to complete due to factors such as the derelict having docking ports or other minor needs, and likewise could have higher payouts for being more difficult, such as if you have to rescue several kerbals, or you have to take the ship home intact. Here's some basic examples: Rescue mission #1: Status: Kerbal is in a small ship orbiting Kerbin and consisting of a capsule attached to a couple fuel tanks and an engine. No fuel, but it does have power. Goal: Bring Kerbal to Kerbin surface safely. Payout: standard and you can keep the Kerbal Rescue Mission #2: Status: Kerbal is in a small ship orbiting Kerbin and consisting of a capsule attached to fuel tanks, engine, and there is a docking port on the ship. It has a small amount of fuel but no power. Goal: Bring Kerbal to Kerbin surface safely. Payout: -25% and you can keep the Kerbal Rescue Mission #3: Status: 4 Kerbals are in a large ship orbiting Kerbin and consisting of two large capsules, multiple large fuel tanks and engines, with other various structual components attached. Ship has no fuel, but it has power, a docking port, and parachutes. Goal: Bring all four Kerbals to Kerbin surface safely. Payout: +50% and you can keep all four Kerbals (plus you could optionally bring the ship to surface for extra payout) Rescue Mission #4: Status: A small ship powered by a probe core is on an escape trajectory from Kerbin with no power and one small docking port. Ship has nearly full xenon tanks and ion engines, lots of batteries but no solar panels. Goal: Bring ship safely into stable Kerbin orbit. Payout: +100% and you can keep the ship Rescue Mission #5: Status: 2 Kerbals are lost on the surface of the Mün riding in a rover with broken wheels. It has power, no engines or fuel. Neither Kerbal is an engineer. Goal: Bring both Kerbals safely to a Mün base that has power, a docking port, an antenna, and room to hold Kerbals. Payout: +50% and you can keep the rover and Kerbals Rescue Mission #6: Status: Kerbal is in a medium ship with engines, fuel, and power. TWR is low, remaining fuel and dV is low. Ship is on a decaying orbit over Kerbin and it barely has the resources to save itself but the pilot does not know how. Goal: Bring the ship into a stable orbit. You can switch to the ship directly via the Tracking Station. Payout: -35% and you do not get to keep the ship or the Kerbal. Completing this mission gives you a chance to accept a follow-up mission in which you rescue the same Kerbal and bring them to the surface of Kerbin safely for standard pay plus getting to keep the Kerbal and ship. Total pay for both missions: 165%

You'll be pleased to know that there is, in fact, another runway near the KSC. I've highlighted its exact location in red on this map: http://i.imgur.com/DRuc7Xn.png Hope it suits your needs!