Jacke

@FlowerChild and Better Than Starting Manned. For KSP 0.23 to 1.0.4, BTSM was KSP to me. Still adapting to losing it.

The logging is built into the game. The reporting isn't automatic for various reasons, personal privacy among them. Any change in that is up to Squad. But Squad details how to go about finding the logs, as the first link in my signature details. Mod authors can do little to properly track down bugs without good details of how the bugs were encountered and the logs to give them the details around what actually happened inside the program. You can curse the darkness. Or take the steps to light a candle. You have to work with the system as it is.

You could have reported this in the MechJeb topic and provided logs so @sarbian could have perhaps figured out what happened.

Because Jool, like Jupiter, didn't end up close to the star it orbits. To get that large requires them to form out where they are now. There's various models of planetary formation that predict where the original large planets forms and when they had major changes in semi-major axis. But most movement say for the Solar System have Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune move the most. Jupiter moves very little. In the stock Kerbol system, Jool is the sole large planet, so there'd be little interaction to move Jool. Biggest interaction would be with the accretion disk from which it formed.

If you're referring to the "General KSP" section https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/3-general-ksp/ or the KSP Discussion forum within it https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/32-ksp-discussion/ they both work for me at this time. Cool!

The light at a given frequency is effectively transformed by the expansion of space as if it had a red shift. I can't at the moment remember how the frequency changes (because I can't recall the exact formulae), but the frequencies of the light in the original rest frame of emission become transformed down in frequency and up in wavelength as the formulae specify. This means the dark lines (which are the light absorbed by cold elements and compounds), the lack of frequencies, are also transformed.

There is a minuscule relativistic transverse red-shift effect, but I'd think it's impossible to see in practice. This isn't parallax, which is back-and-forth, but to reduce data for that is challenging at any range, especially as aberration of light has to be accounted for first. (Fun fact: if "aberration of gravitation" existed, there'd be no stable orbits. Because it doesn't exist, Newtonian Gravitation had to assume its speed of propagation was instantaneous. General Relativity solved this issue.) Anyhoo, proper motion has to be measured against more distant objects that can be safely assumed to be near static. It can be tricky to confirm this and properly reduce the data, but it has been done in some cases out to the Local Group of Galaxies, as discussed here.

Proper motion across the sky with respect to more distant features, which for the Andromeda Galaxy would be further galaxies. As usual, a chain of steps to reduce the data from the raw motion on the sky to the best estimate of the actual proper motion with respect to the CoM of the Milky Way Galaxy, I would imagine. As for what causes the CMB, from the Wikipedia article (3rd of 5 paragraphs is key):

From what I've seen, picking a particular non-emissive navball textures means only one matching emissive, correct?

Hype Train's still in the engine shed, lads. Would just be a waste of steam firing it up before 2022 now.

Technically, it's an aggressive war by at least one side, so it breaks the U.N. Charter. However, in a post-apocolyptic society (or rather lack thereof), you think anyone is going to admit they were a *lawyer* before ?

I think it's technically only an Outer Space Treaty violation if the object actually completes a full orbit, not just that it was put into what would have been orbit if it hadn't been de-orbitted before completing the first orbit. I think both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. worked on fractional orbit bombardment systems that planned to use just that loophole to at least keep the Outer Space Treaty from preventing the development.

That is the way.

I've use the "Community Mods and Plugins Library" for years to help find and organize my KSP mods through its many evolutions by @Gaarst, the Librarian. Howevere, it appears that Gaarst and all others who contributed to this Library and have the ability to update it are no longer active on the KSP Forums and thus the Library is now unsupported. I'm just coming back to KSP this February after being mostly away the past year and more. Going through my mods, I'm checking for changes. Today, I realised that the Google Spreadsheet that's the current home of the Library hasn't received updates on many mods that have changed hands and have new KSP Forums topics. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SxrQS319Vup1NcE9ehrk5hHAtosynH9_O0Qqq4q3nfM/edit#gid=0 The Forums says Gaarst hasn't logged in since 2019 Feb 11. Posts continued on the topic up until 2020 April when I imagine the inactivity became obvious. I wonder what's going to happen. The Google Spreadsheet is still readable but as far as I know, only Gaarst can edit it. Everyone else mentioned by name in the first post has also not been on the KSP Forums since 2019. I'm personally in no position to recreate this, though if a support community could be formed to transfer and transform this, I could provide some time to help support it.

Looks like a good UI. The vertical scroll must be for scrolling through the list of navball textures. What's the horizontal scroll bar for?

Really like that idea, LGG. I find replacing the stock navball texture with a more detailed one vital, even with the stock ability to magnify the whole navball.

I've just fired up my 1.11.1 test install, with CKAN installing only ModuleManager and Janitor's Closet plus its dependencies and suggestions. In a test sandbox game's settings, under the Janitor's Closet tab, the radio button "Toolbar Enabled" has the tooltip "Enables/hides button in scenes other than the editor". Yet when disabled, its button is gone from the stock toolbar in all scenes, including both the VAB and SPH. So the tooltip doesn't match the behaviour of the "Toolbar Enabled" radio button. Shaw's still logging in, which is good. Mod authors do things in the spare moments of their lives and it takes time. Look at me, just a set of Science Spreadsheets and to get that completely upgraded to KSP 1.11.x after no change for 2 years took far too many hours which was only 7 calendar days because I had the time free and I focused on it. Anything else takes a lot longer. I find many mods essential but try to keep them to a minimum and stick with the well supported ones (like from @linuxgurugamer). I've kept track of DiRT as well as alternate mods in other cases (have to keep the options open if needed). I may shift to it. TR in the past has done more than I intended (like change Kerbal heads, though it may have been another mod providing textures for TR without me realising it). Like @therealcrow999, I'd like that too.

This is what @linuxgurugamer said in its thread. On top of that, KSP 1.3.0 is *two* major Unity changes (KSP 1.4, KSP 1.8) away from what's in 1.11.x. For a mod that's does have code (even if it must be simple to have no apparent issues), that's really whistling past the bug graveyard. Especially as the mod author hasn't played KSP for 3 years and really hasn't come back. Did you report this to @shaw or in the TR topic?

@linuxgurugamer has adopted many mods (he supports over 200 of them). He mostly supports the mods (version upgrades, bug fixes) and only actively works on developing one or two at a time (on top of all the other things he does in life) as he has a good system to streamline that support. There's some similarity and overlap between many of them, but I think none are extremely close. You can figure out the differences by looking at his first posts in the respective mod threads supplemented by reading the first posts of the previous mod authors, which LGG provides links to. Here are the links to the original first posts for Hullcam VDS and Docking Camera KURS respectively. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/42739-11hullcam-vds-mod-adopted-by-linuxgamer/ https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/124475-131-docking-camera-kurs-14feb18/ It's been a while since I used either. Hullcam VDS includes camera parts, including an implied camera on every Docking Adaptor, and a system to swap the view between them. It also includes a Kerbal First-Person View while in EVA. I mostly used it via RasterPropMonitor's more detailed IVAs including putting camera views on one or more of the Multi-Function Displays (the monitor screens in the IVAs). Docking Camera KURS is an improved docking camera mod with many features which displayed the views on overlay windows in flight. It also allows seeing through the docking camera(s) of non-focused vessels within Physics range. I don't know if the two mods would play nice with one another, as in the past I found Hullcam VDS sufficient for what I wanted. Some of the features of Docking Camera KURS do look nice.

Finally updated my Stock Science checklists with Breaking Ground Science and other changes and corrections. Link to the post in my signature. They should now document all Caveman Science for KSP 1.11, including those for Breaking Ground: Tier 1 Surface Features on all Celestial Bodies that have Tier 1's, as well as the Go-ob ED Monitor. Now I can get on to completing my KSP 1.11.1 install and starting my Caveman Topaz Career.

20210224a Updated release: added Breaking Ground Science, rearranged sheet layouts; corrected a few typos

I brought up Starlink not in and of itself, but as an example of Elon Musk using SpaceX to establish a new project that didn't take into account all of its consequences, especially the negative ones. And it's good that there has been some changes to reduce Starlink's light pollution, but why wasn't that thought of before the first launch? Astronomy both professional and amateur will adapt to deal Starlink as best it can. But those who get the benefits from Starlink won't be footing any significant part of the costs of dealing with its negative effects. This is all too much like other pollution in the past. It should have been handled better this time. That was just a misconstrue of the numbers. I said "reduce performance to about 70% of an equivalent disposable booster" which is about a 30% hit. Return-to-launch-site has to be cheaper than sea-landings due to less infrastructure operations and distance delays. It's hard to get better numbers than this within more reliable data. Is sea-landing really as low as ~18% ? I agree that developing re-use and rapid re-use is vital. But it has to be developed properly and where it is worthwhile. Early on in the Shuttle program, ~1982, I didn't like that what was still an experimental bleeding-edge spacecraft was expected to be a space truck too. We all know where that went. Rocketry ain't aviation. Aviation is tough enough, but it developed and matured relatively rapidly, partly due to the two World Wars as well as the Cold War throwing a lot of resources at finding better ways nawh and taking the hits in resources and *lives* of pushing the bleeding edge. It's a highly technical and still somewhat bleeding-edge area of human endeavours that all too many people have thought would become routine. And rocketry is tougher that the hardest parts of aviation. Because the engines and vehicles are pushed to perform right at the bleeding edge. It's why new rocket lines usually have about 10% failure rates when put into service and the best get it down to 1-2%. Starship is important because it will advance the development of re-use and rapid re-use. Always remember it is still an experimental bleeding-edge spacecraft. I like the way it's being developed and tested. But because I can't see it having a launch escape system that would not hurt its performance in a big way, I think it should be used as cargo only. Other craft should be used to get people to orbit and beyond. There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. "The Expanse" is conjecture, though a good one, like other good science fiction. We don't know what the future will truly be like and this is a case where the details are important. But for space, let's consider just two places: inside the Van Allen belts and outside of them. Inside is where the light-pollution concerns are greatest, because going outside has the reciprocal square of the distance on its side. Just outside there's geostationary orbit, where light pollution is still a concern. but not as much. How many satellites can fit there? And it's all on the celestial equator. And except for craft in transit (small in number and moving on likely reported courses), the rest is much farther away. In the solar system, even with a lot of colonies, how many ships would operate? I'd say even approaching the number of maritime ships operating now would take a long time. And at distances many many times farther ("Space is big. Really, really, big. ...."), millions of times farther than LEO, and that reciprocal square of the distance makes them even angularly dimmer and much smaller. And virtually all of the traffic would be on the ecliptic and moving in regular paths. Both of those are a lot easier for astronomy to adapt to than hundred of thousands of LEO commnet satellites that will be relatively a lot brighter and larger angularly. Yes, it is important. But it has similar risks to any demagogue. I wish Elon Musk also showed more care in his words and his engineering. These are serious problems. That Starlink may provide a workaround for somewhat. But it won't solve all of them. The root causes need to be addressed. And a disaster-robust infrastructure doesn't have to have Starlink. Excluding warfare (where operational performance trumps almost everything), we have a whole society that is far too oriented around disposal. Even some of the current recycling industry isn't truly effective. There needs to be a re-think and regulation on how things are packaged to improve this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design But rocketry is and will remain for a long time a minor part of society. And it is bleeding edge and uses disposal to largely operate at all. This should and will change and that development is ongoing now is very good. But there's other places in society that would be better to push harder on redesigning to reduce disposal. Beside the costs involve, the big often unstated problem with Earth point-to-point rocketry is the real time involved, the handling at the end points, customs, logistics, and maintenance. Sure, a 30-minute flight, bookended by 6 hours or more both ends for the vessel, cargo, and crew. And then there's that 1-2% complete loss of craft that has to be improved upon.

[snip] Who says everyone on Earth will be able to afford Starlink? These aren't altruists running these corporations. Like with launch services, they'll charge what the market will bear. This is someone taking advantage of owning a launch company reducing the cost of moving into a new variant of a market. Who doesn't care what damage he does. You're enabling him in his destruction. And there's already a better, cheaper, and more robust way to bring the Internet to the world already well deployed. Cell-phone systems with towers and companies linked by fibre. Some interesting thoughts; I'll have to read them in depth later. However, even from a utilitarian view, you can't rate the value of visual astronomers, professional and amateur, just by their numbers and their own needs and welfare but also by their utilitarian contribution to World science and societies. With many of the recent improvements with optics, ground-based astronomy is near equivalent with orbital astronomy and is much cheaper and has far more instruments. Be careful when numbers of people come up, because it could become the utilitarian equivalent of the Trolley Dilemma. The U.S. Internet market because of its history and regulation makes its service more expensive and lower quality compared to most of the World. (I live in Canada and it's not much better.) It's part of what gives Starlink an edge there. But if the fundamental problems aren't solved, things will not get significantly better and likely get worse. Similar to how expensive cable bills are being replaced by expensive streaming bills of roughly the same total cost.

I used to use NavBallTextureChanger. It's still has a wonderful page with alternate NavBall textures. Better to use TextureReplacer, which is maintained. Its instructions, linked in the original post: https://github.com/ducakar/TextureReplacer/blob/master/README.md#instructions tell where to put a replacement NavBall texture.

To me Elon Musk will always have one thing on his side: he's not Jeff Bezos, the Modern Day Sweatshop Operator. Otherwise, I think Musk is full of flaws. He's said very stupid things that he should have know better not to say. He lacks the immediate near-instinctive sense good engineers (also good scientists, especially experimental) have of what's possible and the costs and limitations and where things can be improved. He's more like a lot of tech CEO's, a part-showman who gets far too close to snake-oil salesman. One example where showmanship won out over engineering: the launchpad crew. They should not be dressed all in black. They should be dressed in proper anti-flash gear, which is white, not black. Someday when there's a incident, that could make the difference between degree of injury or even life and death. (See images in the spoiler below.) Another thing that's just wrong is Starlink. A system that will not be better than surface fibre links supplemented by current satellite service. But will slowly and thoroughly destroy ground-based visual astronomy. Just another case of tech-giant collateral damage that gets at most crocodile tears. What Elon Musk really did was bring a good supply-chain to launch vehicles, push engine development, and push re-useability. However, re-useability is not a panacea. Condoms were original hard-shelled and re-useable before ones more like what are made now were produced. Re-useability does reduce performance to about 70% of an equivalent disposable booster due to having to carry the landing equipment and hold back propellants for deceleration and landing. Refit is on top of that. Thunderf00t's videos, for all they ridicule Elon Musk (alas YouTube video makers need to be part-showman as well to survive and thrive), give legitimate analysis and criticism of SpaceX and Musk's other companies and projects. Like any engineer, Thunderf00t did a rough calculation of the costs to find the break-even point for re-useability and thought it likely to be approaching 10 flights rather 2 or 3. Without more reliable data, no one is going to be able to say what it is with greater confidence. What is true is that SpaceX is charging roughly the same as other launch providers. I find Starship fascinating. As a cargo vessel, because with all launch vehicles still having a minimum failure rate of 1-2%, having no launch escape system and crewing it would means condemning some future crews to die. I also think using it to go to the Moon is marginal and to Mars is even less so, being it is designed and optimized to get to LEO. You want a real program to get to Mars? The only one I've read that gives me any confidence is Robert Zurbin's The Case for Mars. You need to read all the chapters. Saturn-5-class-sized rockets with ground checkout (for quality, thoroughness, and cost reduction), 2 of them per mission, an uncrewed return vessel with ISRU to make fuel, followed once the return vessel is ready by the crewed stay vessel to get to Mars. Or change it as NASA suggested. Either way, there's minimal cost, reliability, and proper abort modes throughout the mission. Then run them in succession to build up a Mars colony.