Claw

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you want to only copy the ships, then yes, what you said is correct (copy from one SHIPS\VAB directory to the other). If you are moving them to a game mode where you have to unlock parts, then you'll have to unlock all parts in use by the craft before you can load it in the VAB or SPH. Cheers, ~Claw

Realize that at some point, carrying all that excess SSTO weight will cost you more in excess fuel than what it would have cost to simply throw an SRV or tank away. I haven't done the math to figure that out yet, but there will be a threshold out there where it's cheaper to throw away. -Claw

Unless Slashy is referring to if you place wings symmetrically above and below, or angle them so the tips touch. Basically any dihedral you put on one set of wings is canceled by the anhedral of the other wings. I haven't heard of any bugs with stacking wings unless there is some problem stacking wings on wings.Wings stacked, but attached to the fuselage are fine. Cheers, -Claw

Yeah, like Sirine said. You need to make sure the mod versions you are using are compatible with the KSP version you are using. For most mods, it can be difficult to determine which mod versions are compatible with older versions of KSP because the version numbers don't match up. Your best bet is to download the newest KSP, and the latest version of all your mods. You can copy your save games over into the new install. I couldn't tell you why copying over your entire old KSP install broke your mods. Maybe you copied the files into an incompatible location on your new computer. Make sure you keep KSP away from places like the desktop, or "my documents." x64 specific issues can be found here:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86817-0-24-2-x64-%2864-bit%29-for-Windows-List-of-bugs-and-issues-possible-fixes Cheers, -Claw

Yep. When you read the Frozen Kerbals on EVA, make sure you go through the whole post. It's pretty easy but you need to grab the right part. Feel free to post in here or on that thread if you run into problems. -Claw

Or angle the wing tips slightly up. The real key is to look at the Center of Lift (CoL) marker and it's relationship to the Center of Mass (CoM) marker. Generally speaking, you want the CoL slightly above and a bit aft of the CoM for stability.

I am sorry the update messed up your ships. However, I think it's great to have a torque module that fills the gap between the very low end of probe cores (0.5) to the next step of the reaction wheels (20). We needed a part somewhere in the middle that wasn't a pod, and the reaction wheel and advanced stabilizer have been redundant for a few versions now. just my 2 cents. -Claw

Hmm. It looks like you're using the toolbar plugin. Have you made sure it's up to date? To find your logs: Cause the problem. Quit KSP (if it hasn't crashed). Upload your output log (NOT ksp.log) to dropbox, pastebin, or something similar. Windows: KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt OR KSP_win64\KSP_x64_DATA\output_log.txt (depending on which used) Mac OSX: Open Console, on the left side of the window there is a menu that says 'files'. Scroll down the list and find the Unity drop down, under Unity there will be Player.log Aka Files>~/Library/Logs>Unity>Player.log Linux: ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log

1) The wiki has a list of parts: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts 2) There is a variety of ways to launch a capsule/lunar lander at the same time. Truly, if you just search for "KSP Apollo style lander" in Google Image searcher, you'll see a ton of examples. 3) Yes. A single craft can have multiple MechJeb modules attached. If you have one module on a lander, and one on a command module, both craft will have MJ functionality when decoupled. If one of your ships does not have MJ on it, then when it gets decoupled it will not have MJ options available to it. Any capsule type module must have at least one kerbal onboard to remain controllable (or a probe core attached). So you shouldn't be losing control of the Mk2 if you still have guys in it. That might be a bug or some other problem which we would need more details/pictures of to help you out. Cheers, ~Claw

Ahh, right. I forgot about the fact that the jet engine thrust curve is also adjusted for speed. So yeah, I see what you're saying now.

I don't think the developers would have specifically added tail spin tendencies just to offset the lift/weight ratio. I can't see in your picture very well, but my what I think I see is two fold. - Like you said, it looks like you have a lot of intakes which may be contributing. See if you can move some of them aft to offset the drag tendency. If you recall, drag in stock aero dominates the lifting surfaces at high speed. - It doesn't look like you have much in the way of tail surface. Wide wing craft in KSP can sort of fishtail around. At high speed, the combination of drag and this tendency might be causing the problem. - Also, you say there's no flameout, but also watch out for one of the engines to throttle back some. It might not flame out completely, but you can get situations where one engine will throttle back lower than the others. If you want to use spoilers, it looks like this: [noparse] Do all your spoiler text and pictures in here. [/noparse] And it'll look like this: Do all your spoiler text and pictures in here. Cheers, ~Claw

You're probably thinking Thrust to Weight Ratio. Gravity on Mun is lower so the TWR is higher when compared to Kerbin.

Yes, this is technically true. If you want to go that far, there is also a mod that lets you take "bottled air" with. ~Claw

Sure, go right ahead.

The ISP for jet engines "in vacuum" is used by KSP for calculating the ISP curve. As you get higher in altitude and the air thins out, the ISP increases. You are also correct though, in that they will eventually run out of intake air and stop working. Cheers, ~Claw

Tortoise, KSP stores craft that you build in the VAB/SPH into a file that is labeled .craft. When you launch the ship, KSP saves that same .craft structure as the Auto Save.craft. Which means any time you launch a ship, this ship is overwritten. No amount of driving around will make the game create a new Auto Save.craft. It's only created when clicking on the launch button in the editors. Once the ship is launched, the way KSP stores the ships structure is different than in .craft files. That structure is what is stored in the quicksave and persistence files. Mareczex333's problem is that he launched the ship, and already launched another ship after it. So the Auto Save.craft no longer has that ship in it. He also doesn't have the original design saved in the SPH/VAB. So he's asking how to recreate a .craft file using the information stored in the persistence and quicksave files, which is a complex process.

The developers also wanted to ensure that people had plenty of access to money the first time around. It's better to error on the side of people having too much money than not enough. So the high end of some of the randomly generated payouts can get a bit high. ~Claw

Yes. If this information was in Stock, I would probably go completely clean. (Even giving up Alarm.) Like Jouni, I would disagree with lack of quicksaves (at least at this point in my KSP life). I don't like spending all that time just to find out that my aerobrake was to high or to low. Or some random bug caused my kerbal to poof out of existence. I already spend a lot of time designing and planning. If I didn't allow myself to ever quickload, I would only ever sit around overdesigning everything. That's just my personality though... Also, having some quicksaves lying around is nice for those times when the persistence gets eaten for some reason. ~Claw

I suspect you are trying to switch to a second craft that is still on the ground. If both craft are airborne, you can switch with the same keys. Currently the game is meched such that if you are in-flight, you can't switch to a craft on the ground. I'm guessing this is to prevent accidents while you aren't paying attention. There are some mods that override this feature. Alternatively, you can try and launch both craft at the same time (which is not always easy or practical). Cheers, ~Claw

There is a recent thread discussing nearly this same topic. I'll also reference you to my post in that thread. I use a chart I made that tells me the dV required to get to an altitude (shown in this post). Cheers, ~Claw

It's very difficult to pull a .craft file out of a save file (nearly impossible). You can't just copy/paste the section over because the structures are different. I say it's nearly impossible, but it is doable for smaller craft. For something large and complex, it would take a very long time by hand and you need knowledge of how both files are structured, plus it would be prone to error. Truthfully it would take less time to recreate the ship in the editor than to do this method (for either smaller or larger craft). I don't believe there are any mods yet that do this (or at least I haven't heard of one). Sorry, ~Claw

It's very difficult to pull a .craft file out of a save file (nearly impossible). You can't just copy/paste the section over because the structures are different. I say it's nearly impossible, but it is doable for smaller craft. For something large and complex, it would take a very long time by hand and you need knowledge of how both files are structured, plus it would be prone to error. Truthfully it would take less time to recreate the ship in the editor than to do this method (for either smaller or larger craft). I don't believe there are any mods yet that do this (or at least I haven't heard of one). Sorry, ~Claw

I think I know what you're saying, but perhaps you can post a picture? And if it's what I'm thinking, the slopes of the pod aren't quite set up for aligning turned radial chutes very well. This game is pretty rough on OCD people. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, and most dV maps also include markings to indicate that aerobraking is available. So you know you don't have to include that dV in your destination calculations. They are generally good guides for how much dV it will take unless you go out of your way to do some of those other things mentioned (like slingshots). The other thing to realize is that each dV chart is built off of a set of assumptions. They usually list "craft is in XX meters above the body." (Such as above an atmosphere, or 10km above the highest terrain.) So if you start significantly off from that altitude, the numbers won't match exactly. Cheers, ~Claw

Thanks. Losses were calculated by MechJeb. I did the run several times and the numbers it gave me generally made sense, so I didn't go back and verify them in any distinctly mathematical way. I also flew to minimize flight path losses. Yes, I suppose you're right. It doesn't give the coasted AP height but rather the dV needed to get to that altitude at Vt. I built this for testing, and it's typically at some speed above zero. I then calculate actual dV needs by adding or subtracting the differential between test speed and terminal velocity. For example, if I need to test a component at 20,000m (+/- some tolerance), then I need roughly 2,500 m/s of dV to get there. I'm in the flatter range of gravity loss, so not much change in loss there (remember, the slope relates to loss rate). The atmospheric loss is still a bit steep, so I might need to think about adding some dV pad if my test requires a speed a lot higher than terminal velocity. But I don't want to remove too much dV if my speed is less than terminal velocity because the atmosphere will still drag it off. This particular chart is done with a what I would consider a fairly standard "basic" profile without regard to doing one long continuous burn to altitude (I'm not necessarily worried about getting to orbit). I chose this one because it seems to be a reaonably common launch profile for most mid level users who would ask this question, and it seems to work pretty well for me. So this isn't quite an "optimum" climb to orbit, but one that follows close to terminal velocity (so maybe not too sub-optimum either). The reason the burn stops is that the craft reaches a point where the apoapsis is in orbit, so you coast to AP and complete insertion (again, assuming you were aiming for orbit). If you want a chart that is one continuous burn, then this won't be it. I thought this one was most useful for those "test component X at YY,YYY altitude and ZZZ speed" designs. (This is a "test at altitude" chart more than a "get to orbit" chart.) Which now reminds me, I probably ought to post a terminal velocity chart too. I was maybe assuming poorly that it was handy for everyone. So while this isn't exactly what the OP asked for, hopefully it answers the real question about testing components at speed, at a specific altitude. Hopefully that helps a bit, ~Claw