AlexinTokyo

"Missing crew respawn" toggles whether Kerbals die or simply go "MIA" and are automagically recovered later. Setting it on makes all missing Kerbals respawn, and setting it off makes none respawn (they are permanently lost). AFAIK, there is no way to have a separate setting for the original three (orange suits) and others (white suits). I'm not sure how long it takes for missing Kerbals to reappear in the astronaut facility; I suspect it is random, possibly with a weighting based on how far from KSC/Kerbin they were when lost.

How long is a piece of string? How big your lander would have to be will depend on what you plan to send with it. A minimal, 1-Kerbal lander for a direct return to Kerbin from Duna's surface could be quite small, but it would be much larger using a 3-Kerbal pod and carrying a bunch of science gear. Looking at my favourite ÃŽâ€v map (here), the return journey would be as follows: Launch to low-Duna orbit: 1300 m/s Duna-Kerbin transfer: 610 m/s Assuming that you aerobrake for Kerbin capture, deorbit, and landing. So your first design goal is a lander that has (at a bare minimum with no safety margin whatsoever) 1,910 m/s of ÃŽâ€v on the surface of Duna. A minimal design for this would be: 1 x Command Pod Mk1 (with MonoProp removed) 1 x Mk16 Parachute 2 x OX-4W 2x3 Photovoltaic Panels 3 x LT-1 Landing Struts 1 x FL-T200 Fuel Tank 1 x Rockomax 48-7S This would give you a fueled mass of 2.31 t, a dry mass of 1.31 t, 1950 m/s ÃŽâ€v, and a Duna TWR of 4.6 Then you'd need to get that to Duna's surface: Kerbin-Duna transfer: 1080 m/s Duna insertion: 610 m/s * Landing: 1300 m/s * *You can save some (maybe all) of these by aerobraking at Duna. And finally you'd need a lifter capable of putting all of that into LKO from KSC (about 4,500 m/s) Again, all of these numbers are bare-minimum, no-margin, and assume optimal mission planning and piloting. In other words, use them with extreme care

The Gravioli detector only works while in space (or landed), so if you're in flight in the atmosphere you'll be out of luck. The gravity scan contracts require orbital (or at least suborbital) scans.

Now I'm at a real computer, I'll add some actual numbers to the theory above. First, the rearranged equation for a in terms of T: a = (μ.(T/2À)2)â…“ For Kerbin: μ = 3.5316000 × 1012 m3/s2 = 3,531.6 km3/s2 R = 600 km (Radius of Kerbin) P = 21,600 s (Rotational Period of Kerbin) For a synchronous orbit, T = P, so: a = 3468.75 km For a stationary (i.e. circular, equatorial, synchronous) orbit, apoapsis and periapsis should be equal, so: Aapo = Aperi = a - R = 2868.75 km So if you want your constellation of satellites to end up in stationary orbit, you'll need to launch them to an apoapsis of 2868.75 km. The periapsis will depend on the number of satellites you are launching. For 3 equally spaced satellites you need a 4-hour period (3:2) for 4 you need 4.5 hours (4:3) For your 4-hour orbit: T = 14,400 s a = 2647.15 km Aperi = Aapo - 2(a-R) = -1225.55 km (negative because it's on the other side of Kerbin - it will be a positive reading in game) The periapsis altitude for a 4.5-hour orbit is left as an exercise for the reader

The equation for orbital period is: T = 2À × sqrt(a3/μ) where T is the period in seconds, a is the semi-major axis (km), and μ is the standard gravitational parameter (km3/s2). You can rearrange this and solve for a to get the SMA for any given period. μ is available for all bodies in KSP on the KSP wiki. For a circular orbit, the SMA is equal to the radius of the orbit, measured from the center of the planet. Altitudes in KSP are given from the surface of the planet, so remember to subtract the planet's radius from the SMA to get your apsides.

Note that the bandwidth readings in the data windows are actually the reciprocals of the real values (a known bug from way back when). So the later antennas are, in fact, faster than the earlier ones. You can easily see this if you transmit a Gravity scan via the Commutron-16 vs the big dish antenna (whose name I forget). The power required is accurate, however, so using the earlier antennas costs less charge than the later ones. Since you're much more likely to be charge limited than time limited, the earlier antennas are indeed better.

This is a known issue with the latest couple of updates. You can download a fix from Claw's stock bug fixes thread.

Note regarding Kerbals repairing flat tyres: As of 0.90.0 this requires a level-3 or higher engineer Kerbal; not all Kerbals know how to use a jack anymore.

I haven't progressed far enough in my 0.90.0 career for this to become an issue yet (I'm still mostly using RT-10s), but I'm hoping it can be solved (or at least mitigated) by using the offset gadget (widget, thingamebob, whatever) to offset the radial boosters down so the decoupler is attached near the top of the radial stack. In theory at least, this should apply the ejection force well above the CoM of the booster, causing it to rotate outwards (at the top) instead of inwards. With a bit of luck, this should prevent booster strike without having to apply Claw's bug-fix module. Other solutions I've used in the past include fixed winglets (the first ones you unlock, with no control surfaces) at the top of the booster (or top and bottom for really big ones) angled out at 10°, and sepratrons mounted at the base of the booster pointing upwards and staged to fire with the decouplers.

If I remember correctly, the original instance of this mod used to predict the trajectory off your path after a maneuver node. This was nice, since it would allow you to exactly plan de-orbit burns for precision landings. However, it seems that the current instance (at v. 1.1.0.0) doesn't; it only predicts the atmospheric trajectory for your current orbit. Is this change by design, or is it a bug (or, is it something that requires a facility upgrade or configuration)? In any case, can I submit a request for this function to be added? Thanks for the hard work and the excellent mod. ETA: Stock aero Edit: Ignore this. My orbit was in the opposite direction to what I thought, so my maneuver node was after my predicted landing and the prediction not changing was in fact the correct behaviour.

It's less efficient if your only goal is to get into orbit. That is, any orbit at all will do. It is a lot more efficient for getting into specific orbits (like for satellite missions) than getting into an equatorial orbit and then changing planes for the required orbit.

Surface survey contract with four points (alpha, beta, gamma, delta) on the north-west edge of the 'Africa' continent that KSC is on. Can land there with a <10,000 fund rocket (5,000 if you're really, really good; I'm not). Each point pays 4~5 thousand, and the completion bonus is (from memory) 38k. On hard mode with rewards set to 40%. If you don't stuff up the landing, takes maybe 20 minutes of real time. I move that you couldn't finish it in that time with a plane, because you couldn't get there that fast with a plane. The ones you don't want to try with rockets are the 'in flight below' ones. Then you're guaranteed to need one rocket per site, and to be expert at precision landing, and quick on the draw to get the crew report. I tend not to accept those contracts at all. I completely agree that the satellite contracts are far better, though.

That assumes that a) I've unlocked the plane parts (90 science) and the landing gear (another 90 science, and I have any aptitude whatsoever for flying and landing planes. Unfortunately both of these assumptions are false (I really don't like planes very much).

My understanding is that reputation is capped at 1000, and if you would go over that amount, all reputation from that source is lost. So, for example, if you have 900 reputation currently and would gain 110 rep from a single contract, you will end up with 0. If you would get 50 rep from a different contract, then you should end up with 950. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the reputation bonus from the appreciation campaign is calculated as being from the same source as the original, so if you get 70 from the contract (bringing you to 970) and 40 from the strategy, that would put you over 1000, so you get nothing. Reputation is supposed to get you 'better' contracts, but I don't believe that 'better' has ever been defined. Certainly the contract types and destinations seem to be entirely based of tech tree and discovery progress. Maybe you can get better rewards for the same contract with higher rep, but again, I've never tested this.

The area seems to be centered on the point of the waypoint marker, so if you're wandering about underneath the icon part (the footprints), then you need to go some flavour of south. Check the map often to make sure you're moving in the right direction. If you use the EVE mod, then clouds move from West to East, which gives you a nice reference point. Landed ships also make nice reference points. Hiking 18.5 km from a botched on-target landing attempt was seriously tedious, I'd recommend a new launch if you're not completely strapped for cash. 3~4 km isn't too bad.

It seems that each available or active contract is shown in its own colour. So the fact that it's red has no special significance. There was a post somewhere (maybe the Fine Print add-in thread, I can't recall) that said something about separate colours for offered and accepted contracts, but my experience says this is not the case.

Not a big issue, but I thought I'd report it. When I'm browsing the forums, it used to track what I had and hadn't read quite well. If I reloaded the thread list after finishing a thread, it would correctly mark that thread as having no new posts. Now, it doesn't seem to, and I can finish reading a thread, reload the list and it still shows new unread posts, even when there aren't any. Browser: Chrome for iOS OS: iPhone - iOS 8.1.1 Didn't notice if the behavior changed on my PC, I will update this post when I get home.

Known bug and reported elsewhere. Windows x64 version is not stable, and really not recommended. Unless you're really breaking the (memory) bank with mods, you're much better off with the x86 (32-bit) version.

Solution - constellation of small gravsats (e.g. QBE probe core, OX-STAT solar, battery, Gravioli thing, antenna) in low- to medium-altitude, high-inclination Kerbin orbits. Ensure each satellite has a sufficient relative inclination to the others. That should give you sufficient coverage (with a large enough constellation) that you can survey almost any point on Kerbin's surface in a not-unreasonable amount of time, I think.

Not 100% sure, but I believe that survey contracts specifying 'in flight above xxx m altitude' include being in orbit. This is different behavior to part-test contracts which explicitly require the 'flying' situation.

Hi, I've just been testing this with 0.90.0, and encountered the following situation: I put a probe with RADAR and MultiSpectral scanners into orbit around Duna. I was able to scan into the small map, but the big map window was not available. The following error was repeated in the Alt-F2 Debug Log: [Exception]: MissingFieldException: Field '.CelestialBody.BiomeMap' not found. The KSP and Output logs are here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ytpya07ow2wt3d5/AACsyvk4G3A1PWNxCAMGSfrwa?dl=0 Please let me know if you need any further info or clarification. ETA: Modlist KER - 1.0.13.0 KAC - 3.0.5.0 EVE - 7-4 PreciseNode - 1.1.1 Trajectories - 1.0.0 Transfer Window Planner - 1.1.2.0 SCANsat - 1.0.8.0

There's an option in the cheat debug menu that says something like 'see biomes in map view'. Check that option, and it should overlay the biomes map onto the planets/moons.

Not as far as I know. You can delete all the debris by temporarily setting the 'persistent debris' slider to 0, but this will only delete it, not recover it for funds.

Waypoints for available survey missions are supposed to be visible in the tracking station, and (I think) in the map view of launched craft. If they're not, then either a) this functionality is only available in an upgraded tracking station, or you've found a bug. Try upgrading your tracking station, and if that fails, please go to the support forum and report the issue.

'R' if I recall from the videos.