Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'science'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


  • Developer Articles

Found 181 results

  1. Hello, I recently had to reinstall all my mods because I hadn't played since before 1.3's release. I didn't have much trouble updating all the relevant mods and getting them reinstalled and my game now opens and works correctly. However, the only issue I have is that when I tried to load up one of the specific ships I made earlier, it fails and says that it can't be loaded because it requires a missing component 'scienceModuleAdvanced'. Does anyone know what mod this component might be from as I may have missed one of my mods while reinstalling or something. Thanks Image of error
  2. Using ModuleManager, I want to edit the tech tree or all the parts (including modded parts) to make everything be unlocked from the start of a career playthrough. This is to make a contract-focused mode that is basically the opposite of science mode
  3. Well, basically this is the question. After complete the tech tree, you still play in the save or you just stop? And why?
  4. Light Speed and Sound Barrier

    Question: When lightning strikes afar off, we see the light almost instantly and the sound waves race at different speeds to us with the shortest wavelengths first (crackle sound) and then the rest in a rolling sound as each frequency reaches the ear one after another with lower and lower pitch until the largest wavelength finally finishes the race. This makes sense because Speed=Distance/Time. The shortest wavelength travels less distance to the ear because it’s journey is closer to a straight line. The largest wavelength travels more distance because it must ascend and descend a good distance before making much forward motion. If the electro-magnetic spectrum includes large wavelength radio waves, medium wavelength visible light, and very short wavelength gamma rays, then why does it not follow that light must travel at varying speeds and not constant. If gamma rays and radio waves both were moving at 186,000mi/sec wouldn’t the radio waves be slower than the gamma rays since Speed=Distance/Time. The radio waves takes a longer journey than the gamma ray because the wavelengths are the photons ascending and descending and not moving purely forward at 186,000mi/sec. If we do observe all of the spectrum being constant at the same speed, wouldn’t that mean that radio waves move faster than gamma rays to make up for the greater ascension and descension? If all light is constant in speed then isn’t all light moving faster than the speed of light because 186,000mi/s (I assume) is the speed of light from point A to point B in a straight line in a vacuum? Light must be traveling faster than that figure to make up the extra distance, right?
  5. Scientific Naming of Kerbal

    This is small, just a little idea I had: the scientific classification of Kerbals. Domain Eukarya- cells have nuclei Kingdom Animalia- moves, eats Phylum Chordata- Has a spinal chord Class Virentia- Latin for "green things"; a cross between Mammals and plants Order Primates- walks upright Family Kerbalidae- Kerbal-Like Genus Kerbo- Kerbalized version of Homo Species hebes- Latin word suggesting at Kerbals' not-all-that-intelligent-ness. Thus concludes the scientific classification of Kerbo hebes.
  6. I can not find this part in the technological tree. Saved ships they already own, can not be thrown (even in the sandbox). How will I recover science from my probes? Note: Sorry for spelling errors, I'm translating on google.
  7. A note to start off: This is quite a long post with stuff that might be boring for some of you. If you just want to know the conclusion, skip to the end. So this all started while I was reading through this thread in the game-play questions. Being a bit of a turbohead myself, I figured I could help out at least a little bit with the aerodynamic efficiency of the propellers, even if electric engine types weren’t really my thing. As I read through, I encountered @Geschosskopf who believed from his extensive experience with Kraken and Ladder drives, as well as his (excellent as you will find out) spidey senses for potato physics that stock propellers must exploit physics somehow, his hypothesis being that they were taking advantage of some kind of artifact of the game’s collision physics that ignored Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws. The idea being that the propeller was dragging the plane along without “feeling” the plane. The very good reasons for this idea are summed up in the following argument. “How many RTGs do you put on a shaft? 4-6 at most, maybe less? Each RTG makes 0.8 EC/sec. The accepted conversion rate to real units is 1 EC = 1 kJ, so 1 EC/sec = 1 kW ~ 1 hp. Thus, you're only putting 3.2-4.8 hp into the shaft, which is the about what you get from a small lawnmower engine. How are you even going to taxi, let alone fly, a multi-ton aircraft with that little power?” - Geschosskopf I knew ladder drives and kraken drives took advantage of some strange physics, but I couldn’t wrap my mind around the idea that the physics of collisions between basic craft (like the propeller shaft and the plane) could be messing with things, because that would imply some very wonky effects would be seen any time two crafts were in contact. That being said, I may have been a bit biased since I regularly work on stock turboshaft helicopters. We struck up a lively debate in a private chat, which took place over the course of 3 days. His arguments usually went into the workings of the game, looking at how it (probably) models collision, trying to insure that the collision meshes two parts on different vessels are not clipping into each-other, and moving them a bit if they are. Meanwhile mine usually stayed more on the player side of things, using thought experiments such as a caged jet (this will be followed up on later) to show why it didn't make sense that the propeller was pulling the plane in ignorance of Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws. Eventually I decided to actually run a few KSP experiments to determine the viability of the wonky physics idea, and otherwise determine what was going on. The first experiment was with a Mallard carrying an orange tank. The Mallard had the orange tank inside the cargo bay mounted on a decoupler, with cubic struts and I-beams positioned around it so as to act as a cradle for the orange tank, preventing it from moving when decoupled. The configuration can be seen here. The idea being that, if collision physics work properly, the plane should take off at exactly the same speed if the orange tank remains attached to the plane as if I decouple the orange tank and let the cradle of cubic struts keep it from moving. If the collision physics are wonky like Geschosskopf theorized, then the plane should take off at a lower speed when the orange tank is decoupled, because the game will think the plane is only lifting itself, and will only teleport the tank along to prevent clipping. I made the first run with the orange tank still directly attached to the aircraft. I was a little late with the screenshot, but it took off at 76.1m/s. I made the second run with the orange tank decoupled and held in the cradle. I made this screenshot on-time to see the takeoff once again at 76.1m/s. Exactly the same as the previous takeoff. Sequential trials produced almost identical results, thus appearing to imply that the collision physics worked properly, obeying Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws. But I wanted to be extra sure, so I devised a second experiment. The second experiment I called the “Caged Jet Experiment”. The idea was to simulate the pushing of a stock propeller on an airframe using a jet engine. Just in the same way a prop-shaft is restrained to the airframe of a stock plane or helicopter by a bearing, a jet engine would be restrained to the airframe of a Mallard by a “cage” once again composed of cubic struts. The idea being that a jet engine would stand in for a propeller shaft. If the collision effects ignore Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws in the way Geoschosskopf theorized, then a jet held in a cage should make the plane move much faster than one directly attached to the plane, because the jet engine doesn’t realize that it is pushing the big heavy plane. I didn’t take many pictures of this one because I didn’t have an autopilot installed to allow me to hold a certain altitude precisely, so as to be able to quantitatively measure the performance of the plane. However I testify that it performed nearly if not exactly the same when the engines were decoupled and trapped in the cages as when they were still directly connected to the plane. The only difference was that with the decoupled engines, I could not reduce throttle for landing afterwards. Good thing the Mallard was a seaplane! Another experiment I proposed, but did not perform, was to attach a 5 ton trailer to a 3 ton rover using a stock pin-in-hole joint. If the collision physics work correctly, the setup should behave exactly like what it is. A rover pulling a heavy trailer, with all the associated performance losses. However if the collision physics are wonky, the rover should still have the same performance as if it were driving on its own, and pull the trailer along as if it is nothing. I’m guessing the people I see on here building semi trucks every now and then that a truck most definitely is affected by carrying a trailer behind it. So, the collision physics didn’t seem to be the root of the problem, so another idea came up. That was that KSP didn’t know how to properly get the thrust of a stock propeller, however this was quickly disproved by the point that a propeller is quite literally a number of wings moving a circle. KSP doesn’t have to do anything to find the thrust of a propeller or lift of a rotor that it doesn’t have to do to find the lift of a plane going into a slip-turn. So then there was my hypothesis that the 1EC = 1kJ standard was incorrect. I devised an experiment to try to prove or disprove this. So how it went in my head was that I would measure the torque output of a reaction wheel in relation to the angular velocity. Using these values I could determine the power output by the equation power = torque x angular velocity (P = τω). By comparing this to the electricity drawn (EC/s) by the reaction wheel, I could find the energy content of a unit of electricity. For the experiment I created a kOS script which can read the angular velocity, and use that to determine various other statistics. I also created a special vessel with which to perform the experiment There is a probe core, a fuel tank, a reaction wheel (the 0.625m type, which has a constant electric charge draw of 0.25 EC/s), and two spider engines on the sides directed so as to create torque. The engines are a known constant source of torque, calculated to be 7740 newton-meters. So what the script does is activate the engines, and then take a reading of the angular velocity and labels it Ang_vel0 at a time desginated T0. It then waits a short period, and measures the angular velocity and labels it Ang_vel1 and takes the time as T1. It can now calculate the angular acceleration as (Ang_Vel1 - Ang_Vel0)/(T1 - T0). It can then calculate the moment of inertia of the craft in the roll axis using α = τ/I => I = τ/α. Moment of Inertia = Torque / Angular Acceleration Note that I use the infinite propellant cheat during this experiment to make sure the moment of inertia doesn't change as the engines fire. Anyways, so the script shuts off the engines again, since it needs no disturbances for the next part of the experiment. I use timewarp to bring the spin back to a halt, so as to have no influence from the previous bit that determined the moment of inertia. The script now locks the ship's roll control to full clockwise (would work counterclockwise just as well, that's just what I picked), and uses the same procedure of finding angular acceleration using = (Ang_Vel1 - Ang_Vel0)/(T1 - T0). It displays this value as well as the angular velocity** Since it now already knows the moment of inertia, it runs it the other way to find what torque the reaction wheel is producing. τ = I*α It displays this value** Now with the torque and the angular velocity, it can calculate power via P = τ*ω It displays this value** **All these are updated over time, allowing changes to be observed By plugging all the displayed values into a spreadsheet, I was able to create charts displaying various items such as torque curves. To my intrigue, at near-zero angular velocity, the 1EC = 1kJ conversion rate was true (so in the graph I put EC/s as W for watts), but as angular velocity increased, the reaction wheel appeared to be developing more and more power from the same constant power input. I and probably a lot of people here knew reaction wheels were broken due to lack of conservation of momentum, but this demonstrates just how badly they are broken. At just 9 radians per second, the reaction wheel is multiplying the power input by a factor of 150. Thus you can give an electric plane spitfire performance with the electric power equivalent of dinky little lawnmower. I have yet to perform the experiment up higher angular velocities, however it would be interesting to see how the trends continue. I want to add some more tests into the experiment as, now that I think about it, I'm wondering if torque is actually constant, and the apparent change is due to the spider engines stretching away from the tank due to centrifugal forces, thus changing the moment of inertia slightly. Perhaps I can devise a method of testing that does not require any off-axis parts.* Current conclusion: Stock propellers in of themselves are not exploitative, however electric props take advantage of broken reaction wheel physics to generate power a couple orders of magnitude greater than what is put in! So neither Geschosskopf nor I were entirely correct! *Update: After further testing using a reaction wheel and a tank with no radial engines, I have found that the torque output of reaction wheels is constant. Using this I plan to calculate the MOI of numerous parts, which could be useful for the construction of mechanical contraptions. Thanks for reading! Also thank you Geschosskopf for the fun debate and the push to question the workings of the game. This all was quite interesting to work out. For anyone interested in examining the script I used you can find it below. The order of the display of values and their labels have been modified slightly to be more user-friendly, but all the math is the same. Not that the variable labeled "Torque" is used twice in the script. In the first section it is a fixed value, designating the torque from the two engines. In the second section it is overwritten and is the calculated torque output of the reaction wheel.
  8. I feel like this could be done with a simple patch but I really don't know how to use MM. Is there anybody who can enlight me about this ? Thanks in advance
  9. Hi, I'm having a KSP freeze/crash when performing a science experiment where the Science report GUI doesn't even get to appear. The KSP screen freezes and I get the windows 'processing/waiting' circular mouse icon. The experiment has been both a stock and moded item, so I don't think the part is the issue. I've checked both the log files and had the console open when replicating the issue to try and get information, but the game freezes before anything is written to those possible data sources so I'm left with no direction to track the issue. I've tried to leave KSP overnight in that frozen state and it never has come back, so it's stuck doing 'something'. I've removed a few mods related to science (CrowdSourceScience & [X]Science) but the issue still persists, but is at times random. When I take the same vessel to a separate game using the same install, there are no issues at all and the Science GUI appears as expected. So I'm not sure what to use to get some additional information. Is there are any other tools that can help isolate what might be causing this issue? Log file -> Mod list below in case it's an obvious conflict someone knows about.
  11. I currently am orbiting Duna with a probe containing several DMagic Science experiments. When i arrived on Duna i forgot to calculate how far Kerbin would be, so i cheated to extend the antenna's range. It communicates fine, but i cannot transmit science. i tried reloading but still nothing. [EDIT]-I fixed the issue by completely restarting the game.
  12. Artificial Intelligence: Can we redesign the world? So I have thought about how AI systems are become so much more powerful and complex. So along those lines could computer system AI become self learning enough like google DEEPMIND project to improve just about everything? : Antivirus software with DEEPMIND rooted together so that another computer system could repeatedly attempt to hack with various viruses, then after such a point the Antivirus software with DEEPMIND becomes aware of creating a defense or destroying the virus as soon as detected. Redesign the virus attacking computer to become aware that it has still not found a route of taking control of the device, as this cause the DEEPMIND system would be added to the virus computer to make that happen. As well as come up with combinations of the current viruses to learn and then create more complex viruses of it's own to unlimited possibilities. This in turn could maybe help some networks get an antivirus software that would be incredibly unbeatable. "Antivirus software" is a relative term as to what software it would actually be called, would be up to the designer of course. DEEPMIND self learning AI could possibly learn the capabilities of the current computer system the AI is working in then calculate all kinds of different computer technology improvements. For example the move from HDD to Solid State Drives, seem to be a great step. Of my own curiosity would multiple flash drives being so small, be converted together easily enough to make like say a 40-500 Terabyte Solid State Hard Drive of sorts? This might be the ultimate kicker if two computers are running DEEPMIND and they both begin communication with each other, in an effort to improve their AI. Would it be possible for the DEEPMIND AI on each machine to learn to create just about anything. Such as a biological organism 3D printer for lack of a better term, in which case tissue of a person could be sampled to create a whole new organ within hours. This is just another thought of no evidence or research yet. With such efficient ways to have computers redesign various capabilities of current technology, I believe I read that the DEEPMIND AI developed a way to reduce cooling cost of googles systems by 40%. Along with all those aspects imagine the future designs this system could create for Aerospace, Rocket design, Possibly another way to enter space in a vehicle made to take flight and at a distance predetermined to quickly speed up the the Earth's atmosphere. Although if such technology becomes available likely this won't be a issue. Alien technology UFO you may think of in this case to explore space more quickly than we have ever before. These are just various comments on possibly some ways DEEPMIND AI could help advance the world. In no way do I say these are feasible or close to even happening at this point. With an Artificial Intelligence system and nano-technology and creative ingenuity, seems like most anything is possible perhaps probable. Just some interesting thoughts in my opinion. Have a great day. Thanks, for reading
  13. Flying Saucer

    A revisit of my previous Kraken Drive fairing flying saucer, re-equipped with infinite fuel engines. It's loaded with science equipment, which are all activated with action group 0. It's got a walkable interior that your kerbals can stretch their legs in. While supposedly it has artificial gravity generated by thrust, the game doesn’t understand it so if kerbals are in the craft interior while the craft is flying they’ll just bounce around on the inside.
  14. Is it possible the MM patch the MPL back to the old functionality where it just boosts the available transmission of an experiment? I found @Snark MM patch to cut out the 5x multiplier, just wonder what else to add for the transmission part? Oh - just in case someone suggests it - I know about Dmagics science transmission mod - however I was just hoping for a MM patch level of change - I've already got 112 mods and the spacetime fabric seams in my game are starting to go...
  15. I had a few questions regarding a few varied things I'm looking at for a mod: ** Is it possible to reference a celestial bodies ground texture to utilise within a section of a part model? Reasoning is I figure it might be better to use existing textures already in the game rather than import another texture file. It this just too hard to do and I shouldn't look at doing it and default to my own texture file? ** With the new-ish "Experiment Storage Units" being able to hoover up all completed experiments into it's own experiment container through the "Container: Collect All" button, is there anyway to have an experiment be excluded from this process and not be able to be sent to an "Experiment Storage Unit"? Or am I completely locked into this process as stock experiments only function this way with no available exclusions? Alternatively, is there a way to hide an experiment result (without destroying its information) from this process so the "collect all" function skips over it? ** What's easier to handle at the moment when you are coding a mod (as far as flexibility to get it to do what is desired - moving and handling a resource (eg dirt, water, etc...) or moving science experiments around? I ask as I'm thinking I might change the experiment idea I'm thinking of to a resource and just have contextual information (eg buttons to move stuff around, drop, pickup, etc..) until I'm ready to convert it to an actual science experiment result. ** Last one about models and animations: Cargo bays have an animation that is tied to the angle setting in the right click menu. Would it be possible to tie a flat plane in the model that represents the surface of water in a cylinder to the resource percentage amount of the part? eg a Part holds 5000 unit of water at max, current has 2500 so the flat plane that is the water "surface" would read that as 50% and be shown at halfway point up the cylinder?
  16. What science podcasts do you listen to?

    My personal favorites are Startalk (though I don't listen to it as much as I used to), The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and the Infinite Monkey Cage.
  17. Dang, there are so many mods, so hard to keep track... Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I saw a mod the other day that would alert you to science being available (but does not auto perform experiments). Am I crazy or does anyone know of such a mod?
  18. Recently, I was scouring about the internet and I realized how exoplanets are quite varied, from near-moon sized ones to some about half the size of the sun (Those ones of course might be brown dwarfs.) and I feel like we need some way to categorize them. So here are my ideas of some categories and their abbreviations. I'll be using new and some traditional planet categorizations to make this as wholesome as possible. (I'm going to be using the word planet instead of exoplanet because it's easier to abbreviate that way, anyways...) Terrestrial Planets (TrP) - A planet that is made of mostly solid materials like silicates and metals. ----- Distance from Star ----- Hell Worlds (HW or UHTrP) - Terrestrial Planets impossibly close to a star, reaching temperatures exceeding some stars Sub-Earth Hell World (S-EHW) - A planet less than 0.6 ME and/or less than 0.8 RE. Earth-Sized Hell World (E-SHW) - A planet with a similar mass and/or size to earth. Super-Earth Hell World (Sp-EHW) - A planet with over 1.5 ME and/or is no bigger than 2 RE. Mega-Earth Hell World (M-EHW) - A planet with at the most 10ME and is bigger than 2 RE. Hyper-Earth Hell World (H-EHW) - @ProtoJeb21's terrifying Tatarus (EPIC 220395236). Easily exceeds 10 ME and at the least is 3 RE. This kinds of planets can only happen if the stellar flux is at least 1,000 times of what it is on Earth and the star is bigger than a G-type (as far as i'm concerned.) ^ Hot Terrestrial Planets (HTrP) - Planets that are, well, hot. they range from ~2000K to 700K Warm Terrestrial Planets (WtrP) - tbd ----- Mass of the Planet ----- ----- Size of the Planet ----- Gaseous Planets (GaP) - A planet made mostly of gas, basically Jupiter or Saturn-like planets. Hot Gaseous Planet (HGa or HJ) - Gas Planets that orbit quite close to their home star Class III Gaseous Planet (C3G or C-LG) - Gas Planets that have no clouds, besides the ones near the surface. Class IV Gaseous Planet (C4G or AlG) - Gas Planets that have alkali metals as clouds. Class V Gaseous Planet (C5G or SlG) - Gas planets that have silicates as clouds, these are the hottest type of gas planet. Temperate Gaseous Planet (TGa) - Gas Planets that orbit within the habitable zone of a star Class II Gaseous Planets (C2G or WCG) - Gas Planets that are too hot for ammonia, but have a potential to have similar clouds as Earth's. Cool Gaseous Planet (CGa) - Gas planets that orbit at about the same SMA as Jupiter or Saturn Class I Gaseous Planets (C1G or AmG) - Gas planets that have ammonia clouds or something similar Planemo (PlM or RgP) - Planets with no star, basically a rogue planet. *Sub-Earth Rogue Planet (SRP) - Rogue planets that are smaller than Earth *Earth-Sized Rogue Planet (ERP) - Rogue Planets that are similar in size, mass, and/or density of Earth Gaseous Rogue Planet (GRP) - Rogue Planets that are mostly made of gas. However, they are likely to be hydrogen and/or helium. Warm Rogue Planet (WRP) - Rogue Planets that are noticeably and unusually warmer than the surrounding space Brown Dwarf (BrD) - Stars that failed to go under nuclear fusion: They'll still be planets since they're made of common materials from gaseous planets. Near Brown Dwarfs (NBrD) - Planets that are almost brown dwarfs but not quite. Y-Type Brown Dwarfs (YBrD) - The coldest type of Brown Dwarf L-Type Brown Dwarfs (LBrD) * = Skeptical or to be founded. ^ = Value is dependent on the type of star Notify me if you want something to be changed or add something new I'll try to update this everyday, but that might not be possible since school's coming up.
  19. This is my first time playing career mode, and I'm wondering if I bring two of the same experiment and transmit both, will I get the same amount of science that I would get if I recovered one experiment. Or would I have to send another mission to recover the other half of the science. I'm planning a lunar fly by and I just need to know.
  20. Space Odyssey

    Hello everyone! I came here because I wanted to spread the word about this game, please check it out if you like scientifically accurate space games. The game is being funded on kickstarter and there isn't much time left, please contribute if you can, thanks!
  21. I have my station ( Babylon K ) in orbit around Mun and I have a few questions about labs. 1) I left my Lab running over night but the game was at the space centre and my station produced no science despite a predicted 4 science per day. Does the game have to be focused on the lab to produce science or is there away to leave it unattended while I work on another project? 2) I gather that only Scientists in the lab itself contribute to the conversion rate ( I forgot to add a scientist to the lab and now it's producing 9.8 sci/day ), Is it worth having a second lab on the station and two more Kerbals? Will they work on the same data or will the second lab fill with data once the first is full or will the second lab simply not function?
  22. I literally just started playing, I've played for an hour or two but have no clue how I'm supposed to get more science. I've gotten about 12 overall and got the first two researches but don't know how to get more. I tried reading through the manual but that didn't help. Any advice is greatly appreciated. SOLUTION Figured it out, I was having trouble landing air crafts from high altitudes because I was keeping my engines attached. After I figured how to launch my ships higher and not crash, I got a lot of science for reaching space and back.
  23. Hey guys, First time using forums so I'm sorry If I violate any rules. Basically I have an idea for a plugin that I'd like to see but I really don't know how to make it, I assume it's simple since its only a GUI. So should I just say the idea here and hope someone will make it or what? Help a fellow explorer Thanks in advance
  24. Hi guys So, I was wondering what you guys do before you build rockets. This is what i do:
  25. Hey everyone...and for those of you in the US (or just prone to celebrating) happy 4th of July weekend! Over the past months I have been playing KSP daily. I have been using CKAN to mess around with dozens of mods, and most notably I have been helping @The White Guardian beta test his massive Evolution mod TWG is making a massive overhaul of Evo, so I thought this would be a good time to unisntall everything, update KSP to 1.3, pick some new mods for the future (I want a very simulation-like experience with life support, stage recovery, and failures etc). So I uninstalled and deleted everything and then reinstalled KSP and CKAN. Every time I do that and go to play the game stutters terribly. I can go up to a minute without one, but sometimes it pauses for three seconds every 10 seconds. I did free flight the other day and it was less common, but on my career mode every time I tried to do some SCIENCE! it paused, thought about it, then eventually decided to go ahead. But that was for every experiment. It basically made it a science slideshow. Is there anyone here that has any idea what could be causing this or that can help me fix it? It's not my PC, let me say that (6700K, GTX 1070, 32GB ram, SSD) as it never did this before anyway. I have a very long list of mods, but it's not more robust than it was necessarily. Let me know if anyone has suggestions or can help me with this. I would be happy to provide a mod list if necessary. Thanks! EDIT: forgot to mention I've uninstalled and reinstalled several times and it still happens. It also happened with stock planets and another planet pack.