cantab

What you're seeing looks a lot like the old Mun orbit bug, only around Kerbin. Which IMHO makes it a bigger practical issue because you can just ignore the Mun but you can't ignore Kerbin. From what I've read the issue at Kerbin is new to KSP 1.1.3 and Kopernicus 1.1 and later. Kopernicus has a hard version lock, so it's not straightforward to even attempt using an older Kopernicus on the latest KSP or vice versa, something I might otherwise do to try and isolate the issue.

It could be that your computer uses too little energy in sleep mode for the power supply to behave correctly with. There are usually some options in the UEFI to enable or disable certain "sleep states" to work around that issue.

Ions usually, but you can do it with most of the smaller engines if you give them enough fuel. Some examples of combinations that give over an hour of burn time: Ant+FL-T800, Spark+Jumbo-64, Terrier+2xJumbo-64, Nerv+longest Mk3 liquid fuel tank. ISRU-equipped asteroid tugs are another way to get long burn times now.

Yeah, it's inconsistent. In some aspects 1 Ec = 1 kilojoule is about right. In others, not so much.

What's the workaround? Just reload the game? Because it's not even an issue I've come across before. Personally I don't find it implausible that the stock command pods have somewhere to put a screwdriver and a couple of small rocket bits.

Does anyone know if this is still an issue or if it's been resolved? I don't want to upgrade to 1.1.3 and then find a simple Kerbin orbit or intrasonnan transfer gets messed up all the time.

Does MM 2.6.25 work correctly on KSP 1.1.3? Or are we still waiting for an update?

The mistaken find-and-replace won't have actually broken anything then? (I suppose if it's everywhere, then it shouldn't...)

I disagree, having used the Spark on several craft in my current (started in 1.0.x and still going) science save. It now has its role as a small and light but relatively powerful engine, just it no longer encourages mega spam clusters of them.

Granted. The ship includes the spaceplane from hell that would challenge even a real fighter pilot to get it back into Laythe orbit, a Tylo lander that will touch down with a TWR below 1.1, solid-fuel only landers (and no Sepratrons!) for the other moons, and so little delta-V that it demands NASA-level mastery of gravity assists to complete the mission. But it can do the Jool 5. I wish for really good wheels.

The wiki article is inconsistent. But back in 0.90 it gave 30 kN of thrust and had the same 0.1 ton mass, which gave it exceptionally high TWR, better than anything apart from the huge 3.75m engines. The high TWR more than made up for the so-so Isp because it meant less mass of engines needed. I'm glad it got clobbered with the nerf bat

Crashed my second drone on Serran, after a premature parachute deployment forced me to cut the chute and attempt a rolling landing. Then crashed it ten more times in test flights on Kerbin. Closest I came was actually rolling for a bit and applying the brakes, then it just wheelbarrows over and blows to smithereens. Now maybe I'm a rubbish pilot, but really I have to conclude the thing is just unlandable. Feeling put off KSP altogether now. The freaking landing gear should not be the hardest part of aeroplane design! (Certainly not when the entire aircraft weighs under a ton.)

Granted, as a $14.99 DLC, and KSP 1.2 makes other planet mods impossible. I wish it was 5.

I'm surprised and impressed orbital launchers already go that compact. That starts to make the amateur orbital launcher look feasible, although one probably couldn't and shouldn't try it solely with off-the-shelf amateur motors. They do, you can get Estes / similar black powder motors and also smaller composite propellant motors without needing special licenses.

If you want a stern test in vacuum, try it in an ion lander with *very* low TWR, like 1.0something. In such a lander you can actually find TWR decreases meaningfully through the landing because you don't use much fuel and gravity is stronger at lower altitude.

I am now @Atlas2342

Not much, just had a random idea for a lifter and tried it out. Twin Boar under 3.75m stack, with an inverted fairing for fashion and aerodynamics. There's a gotcha - to make it look good you need to build the fairing *then* place the Twin Boar. The design works pretty well.

My understanding is that solid fuel gets regulated as an explosive in the UK, which means it's heavily regulated, and complying with those regulations is beyond what the typical amateur can do. Once you want to go beyond what off-the-shelf motors can do, you might be better off looking at hybrid or liquid rocket engines if you're based in the UK - because those engines do not "intimately mix" fuel and oxidizer before combustion they are more lightly regulated. You probably don't want to chance doing any of these things without legal advice and regulatory approval, not in this day and age when people have been jailed for 'terrorism' on a lot less.

I believe this would not normally be the case actually. A valid Open Source or Free Software license may not restrict redistribution alongside other software under different licenses. I believe that a modpack would qualify under that. Although like many things, it's not a settled legal question until there's a relevant court case. (Heck, I'm not even sure if it's valid to use the GPL v2 or v3 for KSP mods at all without additional permissions.)

The kraken drive failure with moar boosters when it was stranded on Eve. The Nobel Prize for ______ goes to .... ______

Granted. The IGN (Imagine Galaxies Network) review of Earth scores it "7.8/10 Too much water" and interstellar tourism plummets. I wish I could think of a palindrome.

If you're making a KSP modpack then remember to respect at the very least the legally-binding licenses of the mods, and preferably their developers' wishes as well. I also strongly recommend you properly test compatibility between the mods involved before making a public release.

I've played a few, but never been very good. Piano / synth is the only one I'm vaguely competent on, but the keyboard I own is crippled by lacking touch sensitivity, I should maybe get one that has it. Guitar I tried but never got beyond basic chords and easy rhythms. And I can annoy the heck out of people with a mouth organ or a vuvuzela, does that count?

I've had my share, back when I wasn't quite as good at KSP. My biggest boom was unsurprisingly from a launch failure of my biggest ever rocket by mass. Those are giant Kerbodyne tanks and Mammoth engines flying everywhere. And that disc piece in the centre is from Procedural Fairings and is about 10 metres wide. Nowadays I don't get so many launch explosions, but I do get some impressive disintegrations courtesy of FAR, with debris being scattered over a couple of dozen miles.

It's unlikely to make much difference. As discussed, KSP loads pretty much everything at the start. Although if you use Kopernicus and planet packs there's a load-on-demand system, maybe ramdisk would help there. If the time to load the game again after a crash is a problem, and you have plenty of RAM, then it may be viable to instead keep a second instance of the game running as a "hot spare".