Contract Pack - History of Spaceflight - V1.0

[Aelfhe1m]

5 hours ago, Morphisor said:

Did you test it in action? The contract should complete as soon as any sub-orbital situation is achieved, since the body is not specified for the reachstate parameter.

Yes, the parameter stayed grey after exceeding 80 km (low space for JNSQ) and didn't go green until I entered the SOI of the Mun after throwing the probe at the Mun on a collision course (luckily I try to do the contracts with "accurate" craft rather than minimum necessary, even though that means making a loss on some of them, and the BDB launcher had enough dV).

So far on this run through I've only needed to force complete contracts through the cheat menu when they haven't played nice with Kerbalism's science system (mostly because Kerbalism makes science take a very long time for some experiments)

[Morphisor]

57 minutes ago, Aelfhe1m said:

Yes, the parameter stayed grey after exceeding 80 km (low space for JNSQ) and didn't go green until I entered the SOI of the Mun after throwing the probe at the Mun on a collision course (luckily I try to do the contracts with "accurate" craft rather than minimum necessary, even though that means making a loss on some of them, and the BDB launcher had enough dV).

So far on this run through I've only needed to force complete contracts through the cheat menu when they haven't played nice with Kerbalism's science system (mostly because Kerbalism makes science take a very long time for some experiments)

Well bust, I could've sworn that worked. Oh well I'll just break out unnecessary target body bit.

[CAPFlyer]

Okay, so I'm sorry to come back to this, but I'm about to fly Gemini V, and you've got 3 experiments listed again, but no suggested parts and no bespoke Gemini parts that fill the need.  I know these definitions were set prior to the Gemini update, but maybe its time to update the pack to recognize that there's been a lot of changes to BDB?  It's really frustrating to get a contract, build a satellite that uses all the bespoke parts for that satellite/probe/spacecraft, and then find out you don't have the right experiments/antenna/etc installed so you either have to now kitbash an incorrect part onto it, usually needing rescale to make it fit, and hope that you don't have such a massive data packet that you overwhelm the power for the craft that was designed around the built-in experiments.  Otherwise, if you're going to make it a requirement to do those experiments, then you either need to require a specific part, or you need to list the parts that satisfy the requirements in the contract description.  It's not fair to the user to have to either go into File Explorer and do searches for parts with the specific experiment, or have to individually click on every science part in BDB and other addons to find one that fits the description, especially when some are fairly esoteric and others have very close naming, but don't actually fit your requirement.

Even more, Gemini V was cut short due to fuel cell issues, barely even getting the first part of its rendevous testing done before having to deorbit.  So while getting these 3 experiments gives you a "goal", I would think that there should be nothing returned since they didn't actually accomplish them.

Also, maybe remove all the Crew Report From Space from basically most of the manned mission as well?  Each Mercury and each Gemini have this requirement, but the Crew Report is not/no longer biome specific, so you're running a science experiment that gives no data and no points and costing energy, which kinda defeats the purpose, much like how you removed the orbital surveillance/mapping requirement from the KH series for the same reason.

For now, I'm either just editing out the contract requirements or using the CHEAT menu to complete the mission, but it's kinda defeating the purpose of having the pack when I'm having to do this for almost every mission or spend (quite literally) a couple hours building a mission that should only take 10 minutes to put together since I have sub-assemblies and saved ships for most of these multi-launch series of craft.

Edited April 3, 2022 by CAPFlyer

[ndiver]

Hello,

I restarted to play to KSP and switched to 1.12 after a long stop of KSP.

We are two players to have reported the same error with the same contract Pioneer-1 in Contract Configurator:

Quote

Exception occured while saving ScenarioModule 'PersistentDataStore':
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ContractConfigurator.PersistentDataStore.OutputValue (System.Object value, System.Type& type) [0x00000] in <ef0243a06f2841fe9bf57034a334902e>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.PersistentDataStore.StoreToConfigNode (ConfigNode node, System.String key, System.Object value) [0x00002] in <ef0243a06f2841fe9bf57034a334902e>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.PersistentDataStore.OnSave (ConfigNode node) [0x0003f] in <ef0243a06f2841fe9bf57034a334902e>:0

I tried several times and get each time the same error. I will modify the contract Pioneer-2 to skip Pioneer-1.

The other player has reported his error here:

 

Edit: if I try to avoid Pioneer-1 by removing it from the contract list and making Pioneer-0 the prerequisite of Pioneer-2, i get the error after Pioneer-0 and before Pioneer-2, so I wonder if the problem is really Pioneer-1 orif is is not Pioneer-2

Edited May 2, 2022 by ndiver

[Morphisor]

On 5/2/2022 at 8:16 PM, ndiver said:

Hello,

I restarted to play to KSP and switched to 1.12 after a long stop of KSP.

We are two players to have reported the same error with the same contract Pioneer-1 in Contract Configurator:

I tried several times and get each time the same error. I will modify the contract Pioneer-2 to skip Pioneer-1.

The other player has reported his error here:

 

Edit: if I try to avoid Pioneer-1 by removing it from the contract list and making Pioneer-0 the prerequisite of Pioneer-2, i get the error after Pioneer-0 and before Pioneer-2, so I wonder if the problem is really Pioneer-1 orif is is not Pioneer-2

I'll look into this on the end of Pioneer-2, I could see a possible cause there. The alternative cause is that you are in fact trying to recover Pioneer-1 when instead that craft should end up destroyed as per the mission objectives. I could see contract configurator throwing the error at that point, since the craft that needs to complete the objective stops existing before its completion.

[ndiver]

I assume the issue is coming from Pioneer-2 as I get the error when i tried with the following cases :
Pioneer-0  -> Pioneer-1 --> Pioneer 2
Pioneer-0 --> Pioneer-2 (so the cfg of Pioneer-1 trashed and Pioneer-2 file modified to follow Pioneer-0)

I've not tried (yet) Pioneer-0  --> Pioneer-1 --> Pioneer 3

[r3_141592654]

I am working on Vanguard-2 and cannot for the life of me figure out what to get the "Photometry Data" with. I've tried just about every item in my science kit. I have almost everything unlocked. [X!] Science says that experiment is available which means I have the necessary part unlocked, just not sure which one. None of the long descriptions have the experiment "Collect Photometry Data" listed in the long description. The context in mission says to measure the clouds. The Nimbus-EST says it measures the cloud cover, but I have run that many times and it is biome specific. The Photometry Data as listed in [X!] Science indicates it is a global experiment, not biome specific. I have tried the two most obvious ones, Pioneer 10 UV Photometer and Pioneer SUAE Atmospheric Experiment Package, but neither fulfil the contract or get the science done. Took forever to figure out that the Clementine Imaging Sensor Platform would satisfy the Radar Altimetry Data requirement; go figure. 

BTW, I do love these extra contracts and science experiments, don't get me wrong. I do agree with a previous poster that putting the specific item required in the contract, like it specifies the Vanguard-2 Probe Core for the Vanguard-2 mission, would help get around much of the ambiguity. Something like, "Use [science device] to collect Photometry Data and Transmit it back to KSC. Unfortunately it is not possible to figure this stuff out while in sandbox since the science system is disabled. 

 

P.S. I have run Pioneer-0, Pioneer-1, Pioneer-2 and Pioneer-3 all as per the requirements and have had no issues completing each of them. I am doing the History of Spaceflight contracts in chronological order as presented by the mod.

P.P.S.  I apparently did have this issue with Pioneer-1 as linked to by ndiver. Now I forgot how I got around it because I know I have done up to Pioneer-3 successfully. Maybe I just got the error message without any adverse effects on later missions?

Edited May 4, 2022 by r3_141592654
Correct Information

[Aelfhe1m]

9 hours ago, r3_141592654 said:

I am working on Vanguard-2 and cannot for the life of me figure out what to get the "Photometry Data" with. I've tried just about every item in my science kit. I have almost everything unlocked. [X!] Science says that experiment is available which means I have the necessary part unlocked, just not sure which one. None of the long descriptions have the experiment "Collect Photometry Data" listed in the long description. The context in mission says to measure the clouds. The Nimbus-EST says it measures the cloud cover, but I have run that many times and it is biome specific. The Photometry Data as listed in [X!] Science indicates it is a global experiment, not biome specific. I have tried the two most obvious ones, Pioneer 10 UV Photometer and Pioneer SUAE Atmospheric Experiment Package, but neither fulfil the contract or get the science done. Took forever to figure out that the Clementine Imaging Sensor Platform would satisfy the Radar Altimetry Data requirement; go figure. 

BTW, I do love these extra contracts and science experiments, don't get me wrong. I do agree with a previous poster that putting the specific item required in the contract, like it specifies the Vanguard-2 Probe Core for the Vanguard-2 mission, would help get around much of the ambiguity. Something like, "Use [science device] to collect Photometry Data and Transmit it back to KSC. Unfortunately it is not possible to figure this stuff out while in sandbox since the science system is disabled. 

 

P.S. I have run Pioneer-0, Pioneer-1, Pioneer-2 and Pioneer-3 all as per the requirements and have had no issues completing each of them. I am doing the History of Spaceflight contracts in chronological order as presented by the mod.

The photometry experiment is built into the Vanguard-2 satellite (Easton-V2 "Narly" Probe Core if not playing with real names patch).

Spoiler

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleScienceExperiment
		experimentID = bd_Photometer
		experimentActionName = Measure Albedo
		resetActionName = Reset Instrument
		useStaging = False
		useActionGroups = True
		hideUIwhenUnavailable = False
		xmitDataScalar = 1
		scienceValueRatio = 0.3
		dataIsCollectable = True
		collectActionName = Collect Data
		rerunnable = True
		interactionRange = 1.2
		usageReqMaskInternal = 1
		usageReqMaskExternal = 8
	}

 

You shouldn't need any extra parts to complete the contract.  The relevant PAW entry is labelled "Measure Albedo" clicking it should bring up a "Photometry Data" science result window.

[r3_141592654]

@Aelfhe1m   so I have been wracking my brains out trying hundreds of science parts when the photometry data was acquired using the Vanguard-2 Probe Core? UuuGGHH. There should be a clue somewhere in the flavor text in Mission Control, or in the contract itself that hints at this. I'll try this tonight and strip off several other science parts from my Vanguard-2. I am wondering if this information is available in the VAB when I right click the Probe Core? I've noticed that many of the experiments that parts can do will not show up in VAB or SPH, but will only show up once launched. This should be changed. Again, one more way to give a clue as to which piece of equipment to use for the experiment.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I probably would have never thought to look at the Probe Core itself for running a science experiment.

[Aelfhe1m]

@r3_141592654 Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. Yes the part info panel in the editor does show the "action name" as the type of science experiment being done but that "action name" can be defined differently on different parts. e.g. for the experiment discussed "bd_photometer":

• Vanguard 2 probe core - "Measure albedo"
• Pioneer 10 Imaging Photopolarimeter - "Photopolarimetry Measurements"
• Pioneer SUAE Atmospheric Entry Probe - "Collect Photometery Measurements"
• Pioneer SUAE Atmospheric Experiment Package - "Collect Photometery Measurements"

And the text in the contracts is also variable:

• Gemini IV [no title]
• ATS-3 "Study the atmosphere"
• Explorer-30 "Use the photometer for some experimentation"
• OSO-1 [no title]
• OSO-2 [no title]
• Vanguard 2 "Measure cloud-cover distribution"

The Nimbus wouldn't work for this contract as it has a different experiment (bd_mapping) that also sometimes gets described as measuring cloud cover.

There is no real solution short of digging through the ModuleManager.ConfigCache like I did to get the above information, which is neither convenient nor something every user wants to do (or knows how to).

One ugly fudge that can be used is the following MM patch that will add the experiment name to the "action name" field:

Spoiler

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]]:FINAL
{
  @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]
  {
	   @experimentActionName = #$experimentActionName$ ($experimentID$)
  }
}

At least this let's you see the actual experimentID in both editor and flight.

[ndiver]

@Morphisor i confirm the problem is coming from Pioneer-2, i removed it and made a contract path Pioneer-1 --> Pioneer-3 without having Pioneer-2, and I do not get an error this time.

Edit: I get an error message once validating Pioneer-3 with this flow  I do not understand ... Let see if it is really critical for the future.

Edited May 7, 2022 by ndiver

[CAPFlyer]

On 5/4/2022 at 11:38 AM, Aelfhe1m said:

@r3_141592654 Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. Yes the part info panel in the editor does show the "action name" as the type of science experiment being done but that "action name" can be defined differently on different parts. e.g. for the experiment discussed "bd_photometer"...

One ugly fudge that can be used is the following MM patch that will add the experiment name to the "action name" field:

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]]:FINAL
{
  @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]
  {
	   @experimentActionName = #$experimentActionName$ ($experimentID$)
  }
}

At least this let's you see the actual experimentID in both editor and flight.

Thank you for this patch.  The inconsistency in naming, and the use of esoteric information not readily available in the VAB description is one of the few things I've continued to struggle with in this pack.  I've asked previously that this be changed to specify the part required explicitly if you have it (since it can be made a requirement and is for some contracts but not all) but I know Morphisor isn't really looking to make big changes to the pack anymore.

Sub-post for related issue -

The newest BDB update has deprecated a bunch of parts fully.  As such, a lot of part names changed and now some contracts that have parts specified are no longer valid and so you can't finish the contract because it expects a part that doesn't exist.  The one I ran into immediately was that Gemini 6A calls for "bluedog_Gemini_Crew_A" which doesn't exist anymore with the release.  I suspect there are probably also issues with the Apollo contracts (and parts now available that weren't before that might be added).

Edited May 7, 2022 by CAPFlyer

[Morphisor]

6 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

Thank you for this patch.  The inconsistency in naming, and the use of esoteric information not readily available in the VAB description is one of the few things I've continued to struggle with in this pack.  I've asked previously that this be changed to specify the part required explicitly if you have it (since it can be made a requirement and is for some contracts but not all) but I know Morphisor isn't really looking to make big changes to the pack anymore.

Sub-post for related issue -

The newest BDB update has deprecated a bunch of parts fully.  As such, a lot of part names changed and now some contracts that have parts specified are no longer valid and so you can't finish the contract because it expects a part that doesn't exist.  The one I ran into immediately was that Gemini 6A calls for "bluedog_Gemini_Crew_A" which doesn't exist anymore with the release.  I suspect there are probably also issues with the Apollo contracts (and parts now available that weren't before that might be added).

I'm aware of the issues and will try to look into applying fixes and updates to match the recently official BDB releases.

Soon^tm

[Morphisor]

So the most basic issues have now been fixed on the Github repo, get your update there if you need it. I fixed Pioneer (both 2 and 3 were affected in stock version), Skylab, Gemini VI-A (stock only, for some reason it hadn't been changed with the rest, all of which had been set up correctly already months ago - didn't throw an error however so I missed that) and Pegasus.

All contracts should now work again. I'll look into the different experiments being asked as well, will remove the ones that don't come with the parts sets that represent the actual craft to make it simpler and obvious what to use. Will take a bit of time to get that sorted though.

[CAPFlyer]

Thanks for looking into it and the fixes so far.  I really love this pack and look forward to using it for a long time going forward and at least another couple play-throughs.

[ndiver]

On 3/28/2022 at 3:18 PM, Morphisor said:

Did you test it in action? The contract should complete as soon as any sub-orbital situation is achieved, since the body is not specified for the reachstate parameter.

For Pioneer P-30, i'm also stuck on how to have both "suborbital" and HomeWorld().Children().First() as validated conditions

[CAPFlyer]

1 hour ago, ndiver said:

For Pioneer P-30, i'm also stuck on how to have both "suborbital" and HomeWorld().Children().First() as validated conditions

I've not had this issue.  You launch on a profile to be on like a 200km circular orbit (which makes sure you're suborbital until well into the 2nd stage, but also get a high initial loft) with Mechjeb PVG, and then do exactly what really happened - when you get into the 2nd stage (Able), you either start dumping propellant, or just kill the autopilot (and thus thrust) and let the satellite re-enter with the stage.  Don't remember it not validating both.

[Morphisor]

7 hours ago, ndiver said:

For Pioneer P-30, i'm also stuck on how to have both "suborbital" and HomeWorld().Children().First() as validated conditions

 

5 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

I've not had this issue.  You launch on a profile to be on like a 200km circular orbit (which makes sure you're suborbital until well into the 2nd stage, but also get a high initial loft) with Mechjeb PVG, and then do exactly what really happened - when you get into the 2nd stage (Able), you either start dumping propellant, or just kill the autopilot (and thus thrust) and let the satellite re-enter with the stage.  Don't remember it not validating both.

Just to be sure, the GitHub  version had removed the moon target body requirement already, since it could lead to possible errors such as reported with Pioneer 1 and 2 above. 

[CAPFlyer]

Found a few more date issues.

Explorer 33 (IMP-D) - Listed: 25 MAY 66 / Correct: 1 JUL 66

I think this was just a mis-read of the list because you have both Explorer 32 and 33 launching on 25 MAY.

Just launched Surveyor 1 and about to launch ATDA, so really getting into the more complex missions and loving it!

[ndiver]

@Morphisor considering the updates in Tantares and Bluedog mods, I suggest you to make a new release of the mod

I found out by checking folder by folder that I had a lot of mission not displayed because of that, especially the Manned Soviet missions, nor the Apollo ... And Pioneer-2 that i removed (when i had the bug) was the initiator of many other missions (my fault for Pioneer)
I updated my .cfg files according to the ones showing changes over the last months on Github, and it now apparently works correctly.

Few other questions:
1) as far as I could see, all the contracts are Trivial. Why not making them Trivial / Significant / Exceptional depending of their importance, their success & failure?
The historical failure (like many at the beginning) would be "Trivial" when an important milestone for a program (eg. Vostok-1 or Apollo-11) would be Exceptional. That also allows for the player to see what were the "important" missions.

2) the (logical) link between missions is sometimes unclear.
Do you have a diagram showing it? For example right now I have Corona-54 offered because of Explorer-14 (see here), but had not offered any of the earliest Corona KH4 missions.

3) any plans for OGO-1 and OGO-3?
OGO Science parts now have these experimentID: bd_ionElec, gravityScan, logIonTrap, bd_gammaRay, bd_magScan, bd_massSpec

Edited June 5, 2022 by ndiver

[Morphisor]

22 hours ago, ndiver said:

@Morphisor considering the updates in Tantares and Bluedog mods, I suggest you to make a new release of the mod

I found out by checking folder by folder that I had a lot of mission not displayed because of that, especially the Manned Soviet missions, nor the Apollo ... And Pioneer-2 that i removed (when i had the bug) was the initiator of many other missions (my fault for Pioneer)
I updated my .cfg files according to the ones showing changes over the last months on Github, and it now apparently works correctly.

Few other questions:
1) as far as I could see, all the contracts are Trivial. Why not making them Trivial / Significant / Exceptional depending of their importance, their success & failure?
The historical failure (like many at the beginning) would be "Trivial" when an important milestone for a program (eg. Vostok-1 or Apollo-11) would be Exceptional. That also allows for the player to see what were the "important" missions.

2) the (logical) link between missions is sometimes unclear.
Do you have a diagram showing it? For example right now I have Corona-54 offered because of Explorer-14 (see here), but had not offered any of the earliest Corona KH4 missions.

3) any plans for OGO-1 and OGO-3?
OGO Science parts now have these experimentID: bd_ionElec, gravityScan, logIonTrap, bd_gammaRay, bd_magScan, bd_massSpec

The Github master branch should be fully up to date with the latest Tantares and Bluedog releases, do let me know if there's anything I missed in there - but last I checked all contracts loaded well.
I still have to work through the science parts of the Apollo contracts, but other than that all compatibility stuff has been done, too (working from CAPFlyer's reports). This includes the OGO missions.

I haven't set the prestige values since, at least as far as I'm aware, no tangible benefit to doing so - the credit and reputation rewards are already set separately. The way I see it, anyone playing this pack should already be plenty aware of the significance of most of the missions included, or otherwise be encouraged by the descriptions to read up more for themselves!
I guess what I'm also saying is, I don't feel it'd be worth my time go through them all to change it, given the above reasoning. But someone would like to do so and submit a pull request, that'd be fine!

For the US missions, all the initial branching off of various programs begins at the Explorer program. Once that gets started, anyhow. Corona-54 comes directly from there since it really is more of a science mission than a recon one, which had a different objective compared to the other Corona missions.

[Morphisor]

So I finally had a few more days of inspiration recently and it pushed me to add what I consider to be the final essentials for this contract pack.
I also completed the BDB science/compatibility pass. 

With all that, after several years of languishing, it is FINALLY time to send this dear pack off to what may quite well be considered the definitive version:

----

**Version 1.0.0
- Many improvements and additions to (Soviet) early missions, making them vastly more interesting - all credits for this go to Wolffy-AU!
- Added Nimbus missions.
- Added Mariner missions 5-10.
- Added Pioneer missions 7-13.
- Added Venera missions 4-16.
- Added Viking missions.
- Added Mars missions 2-7.
- Added Helios missions.
- Confirmed functionality on KSP 1.12.x.
- Updated part requirements and science parameters for Tantares and BDB updates since last release.
- Some small fixes and balancing, editing.

---

You may be interested to know the full version of the pack (Stock and RSS versions) has just short of 800 missions to enjoy, with the pocket edition now coming in at 370. 

There's of course a boatload of missions left that didn't make the cut, but there's only so much time and energy one can spend on this. So for me, consider this to be it.
nput and pull requests are always welcome, and will of course continue to provide support to maintain functionality.

[Beetlecat]

Oh, heck! This is wonderful news   TY for the update.

I was having some difficulty getting the R-101 contract to recognize me having a "payload", but as I was trying to use CNAR to replicate the flight any sort of payload wasn't exactly an option, so I fudged it.

Looking forward to trying out the new ones if/when I finally get to them.

[Russos]

For some reason, the Ivanov mission does not turn on.

Can reputation affect this? I started a new career at -490 and am now at -400

 

[Morphisor]

3 hours ago, Russos said:

For some reason, the Ivanov mission does not turn on.

Can reputation affect this? I started a new career at -490 and am now at -400

 

No, reputation shouldn't affect this. You might try fast forwarding a bit or just going through other screens on the KSC for a while, it may just be CC not generating the new contract right away, for some reason. 

Otherwise it's likely to be an issue with a data node not solving, though I can't see any issues for now.