cantab

Works for me with KSP 1.1.2 and Kopernicus 1.0.4. With the caveat that all I've checked is that the planets load and appear in the tracking station. I shan't be surprised if there are bugs when landing on them.

Whaaaaaaat??? Seriously??? I choose to use Earth time because I'm in a modded system where "Kerbin time" makes no sense. You're saying that that actually effs up the game balance? EDIT: To clarify, are you saying that changing the Kerbin/Earth time setting will make Kerbals consume a different amount of supplys per second? What the actual heck? I'm this close to just dropping all your mods if you're going to be pulling shenanigans like that in them.

The 750 Ti is actually around the price/performance optimum for graphics cards. Cheaper cards end up falling off dramatically in performance for not much money saving. For example a 750 Ti is about 33% more expensive than a 740, yet offers double the performance. The GTX 950 is even better, close to three times the performance of a 740, but looks a bit expensive in Canada going by PCPartpicker. If you are interested in playing games other than KSP, I'd suggest a 750 Ti. I feel it's enough performance to run any game on reasonable graphics settings, so you'll rarely have to worry about not meeting minimum requirements to play a game you're interested in. (Except in games where your CPU might struggle). But then I'm a bit biased because I got a 750 Ti myself, though I admit I've not hugely taxed it.

$100 Canadian? And you want it fully passive? If you want it for any games more graphically demanding than KSP or Minecraft, then that's going to be tricky. There are fanless 750 Ti's but they're gonna be a lot more than that. GT 730 is in budget but it stretches the definition of "good". (Still a lot better than a 210 though!) If you aren't gaming on that machine, just get a GT 710 and call it a day. Triple-screen support, fanless cards available. And I think it's enough to handle KSP, though won't be great on anything flashier.

Hubble is currently in good working order. The last servicing mission, flown by the Shuttle, replaced all the gyros. (That mission was initially cancelled, because after Columbia NASA administration didn't want Shuttle flights that couldn't visit the ISS if required and the Shuttle can't visit both ISS and Hubble in one flight, but the mission was reinstated when the NASA administration changed.) Recently it was announced that Hubble has observed the moon of dwarf planet Makemake.

What exactly do you want to do? "Launch" with a Kerbal in the seat already? I agree that ought to be added and shouldn't be too hard. Place the external seat as the first part? That's more complex. At the moment it's a "surface attach" part with no attachments nodes, and all parts like that cannot be the first part placed to make a vessel. They usually also cannot have other parts attached to them, and that would in any case be problematic with the external seat considering its complex small-scale shape.

The planet mods will be fixed long before Squad add any new worlds.

Hardest thing I've done ... I'm not sure. Tylo ... actually wasn't that hard. The tough bit was dealing with structural issues and horrendous lag to get the oversized lander out to Jool. I could have done a smaller lander, but I thought Jeb should go in style. Once I was there I got the landing right on my second or third go. Had to jetpack to finish making orbit again though. Eve I have yet to even attempt. Likewise I've never tried descending into Jool and returning. As for what was hard: Way early in my KSPing, I did a Minmus EVA landing and returned to the ship in orbit. Bone stock, back when Kerbals didn't have navballs. Real seat-of-the-pants stuff. I sent this tiny probe flying by *every* planet in the system, plus Mun and Ike, in an epic string of gravity assists. Its twin missed Eeloo and instead finished with a sundive. Some of those assists took hours to set up just right. I made orbit ... in KSP 0.7.3. The first public release of the game, it has no ability to stack tanks to feed an engine, no map view, no struts, and no symmetry. I did a save where I mined all my own rocket fuel using the kethane mod, and built a couple of tanker planes to go out to deposits on Kerbin, fill up, and come back to KSC. They're kind of heavy fully loaded, and taking off from rough desert terrain took an awful lot of quickloading. In my current save I have a modded solar system and I'm playing no-reverts. Serran is one of the mod worlds: larger than Duna, smaller than Laythe, with an oxygen atmosphere but no oceans. The program to land a Kerbal on Serran and return them safely was quite involved and really gave me a new experience. First I landed probes and characterised the atmosphere - actually using the barometer to take pressure readings and various heights and graphing my results. Then I worked to bring a probe back, and learned that making a lander that flies stably backwards on atmospheric entry and forwards during ascent is kind of tricky. Only then was I ready to land, and first I did a "dummy run" a la Apollo 10, before finally running an actual landing. And I pulled it off too, without a single quickload, revert, or Kerbal death during the entire program. Getting the Burj Kherbalifa into space was hard only because the game lag was the worst I ever experienced, and I was trying to make a deadline to submit my mission. Two hours real time to make orbit. (Actually it only got suborbital on its own power, then I activated infinite fuel because I sure as heck wasn't sitting through the ascent again). But for me the hardest thing has to be the thing I've attempted three times but never succeeded at: landing a Kerbal on Duna and returning them to Kerbin, without screwing it up and quickloading. The first time, the lander disintegrated on chute opening. The second time, the lander had no chutes and its engines couldn't stop it in time. The third time, it was a rover and I wrecked it in an 85 mph rollover crash. (In fairness, I've not actually attempted Duna in a save I was using quickloads in, whereas my Tylo and Moho landings both relied on quickloads.)

Known Kopernicus bug. Work around is to start the game, load the save, and go straight into the R&D facility and you'll see the proper science archives. It's only once you go into some other building and back that the archives stop working, until the next time you restart the game.

This is the best option if we really don't want Hubble to burn, just boost it into an acceptable graveyard orbit. Problem is it would need quite a boost to get out of the busy parts of LKO. If Hubble is still in working order but threatened by orbital decay, I *absolutely* feel it should be reboosted. Even once JWST is in service, Hubble still has unique capabilities and I'm confident it would be worth the relatively small cost of the reboost, compared to how much has been spent on the spacecraft over its life. I really hope NASA are already considering plans. And I think Hubble could last that long, in fact I wouldn't be hugely surprised if it outlives JWST (which after all can't be fixed if there's an unforseen problem).

Whatever I want on it. When I was filling out the tech tree it would be nearly all the science gear I'd unlocked. When I used to use Antenna Range I'd pack multiple different antennae. Now in my current save it'll probably be ScanSAT kit. I've built little things, like this Duna orbiter and lander that fitted in the 1.25m cargo bay on one of my spaceplanes: And great big ones, like this Kerbin observation satellite that's inspired by how real observation and communication satellites look:

Isn't that what happens when your rep hits negative 100 percent? It should be EDIT: And Emacs is a pretty neat operating system, it's just a shame it doesn't have a good text editor. *ducks*

These are my go-to delta-V maps for more complex missions. They'll cover things like Hohmann transfers between Joolian moons, or a direct departure from Laythe to Kerbin. They are pre-1.0 so the atmospheric values aren't valid, but everything else is the same. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/1qu5jv/deltav_charts/ I drew this to show how your flyby of Jool should relate to the orbit of your target moon to make a direct powered capture or aerocapture into orbit of that moon. https://flic.kr/p/vKzszJ And the final "piece of the puzzle" is that by making a mid-course correction and trading prograde/retrograde and radial/antiradial components of the burn, you can keep a certain trajectory past Jool, for example tangent to Laythe's orbit, and adjust the time of that trajectory, thereby enabling you to encounter Laythe (or any other moon round any other planet) in the place and time you desire.

Because Squad didn't hire Ferram. And yes, making a plane that can land at a nice friendly speed on rough terrain, and also blast it at Mach whatever, is hard in FAR. It's hard in real life too.

"5. You can in fact generate infinite science, provided you're willing to invest in the infrastructure and time. This is by design, because Science was the last currency that had a limited supply" I didn't think that was the case. Even without the MPL there were three other sources of limitless science: strategies, contracts, and asteroids.

Falcon first stage can't survive a re-entry. Nor can second stage yet. It would have to launch a custom descent vehicle for the Hubble. Nothing currently exists with anywhere close to the capacity, not since the Shuttle retired. It would be fraught with difficulty, especially considering Hubble isn't super-sturdy. Hubble is in a different orbital inclination to the ISS. Bringing them together would require a prohibitive amount of delta-V. I suppose it *might* be possible with an ion drive.

I'm going to return to Amedee's original post, and bold some parts for emphasis: The i5-4670 is a Haswell CPU running at 3.4-3.8 GHz. This Xeon E3-1241 v3 some of you are mentioning is a Haswell CPU running at 3.5-3.9 GHz. That's virtually the same. When it comes to KSP it is not an upgrade and would be a total waste of money. The game isn't well enough multithreaded to benefit much from hyperthreading. The only CPU that is a meaningful upgrade without overclocking is the i7-4790K, running at 4.0-4.4 GHz. Since the processors are otherwise near-equal, that's about 16% better than the i5-4670, and I'd expect a similar boost in KSP framerates on CPU-limited vessels. It's not a lot, considering the cost, but it is an upgrade. If @amadee reconsiders his stance on overclocking, then the i5-4690K is also an upgrade and will be as good as the 4790K for KSP and cost significantly less. The i5-4670K and i7-4770K are also options on the second-hand market, though some examples don't overclock very well. No other Haswell CPUs should be considered for meeting Amadee's stated goals. EDIT: It's not about hyperthreading or "needing an i7". It's about the 4790K offering the best single-threaded performance without overclocking, and the other K model i5's and i7's offering such performance with overclocking.

I think the new MPL mechanic *is* worthwhile. It rewards setting up a permanent-ish infrastructure, and learning to either rendezvous and dock (for an orbital MPL) or land with precision (for a surface one). It gives some purpose to station or base construction in the stock game, making them a worthwhile alternative to simple "flags and footprints" type missions. Currently it may be too *much* of a reward, and there are a few oddities especially with multiple labs, but I think Squad got it right with the general idea.

Yeah, it's a bit confusing. A "recycler" doesn't actually convert mulch into supplies, it just reduces the rate of supplies conversion. The greenhouses on the other hand *do* convert mulch, and possibly fertilizer, into supplies but with some mass loss. Roverdude have you thought of adding a dedicated recycler part to USI-LS? There's been discussion that the MPL is "overpowered" in terms of the science it can produce with the new mechanic that got added a couple of versions back (in 1.0 ?). Giving it the life support role makes it even more powerful for career or science players.

I don't even give stuff like that hits.

I'm inclined to think that if you were on the deck, you'd be seriously injured or killed *before* the rocket even touches down, it is a rocket engine firing practically on top of you after all!

For what it's worth, KSP 1.1.2 "works for me" on Debian. (Mixed system, mostly stable but with some packages from testing and backports.) 4.5 kernel, running 64-bit KSP 'directly' (ie not through Steam). It's a bit crash happy, compared to 1.0.5 which was rock stable, but playable enough. sal_vager I wonder if your issue isn't just KSP being a mega CPU hog. Though it's a bit odd for REISUB to not work, unless it's actually been disabled. You could try the 4.5 kernel from Debian perhaps.

Yes.

A general principle I've found: You can't raise your apoapsis with a gravity assist at periapsis. You can't lower your periapsis with a gravity assist at apoapsis. (Unless your orbit is inclined relative to the assisting body's orbit). The consequence is that if you want to set up a Kerbin gravity assist to boost you out towards Jool, you need to make your orbit cut inside Kerbin's so they cross at an angle. Similarly, if you want to use a Jool assist to go sundiving, it's not enough to get an apoapsis level with Jool, you need to push it out somewhat further.

When I used the Mobile Processing Lab on my Mun station, at first I thought the same, it seemed rather OP. But then I thought about it a bit more, and considered what I'd put "in": Sent the station to Mun orbit. Quite a heavy thing too since it had a half-orange tank for refuelling stuff. Sent a lander to dock with the station. Rendezvous and docking is old hat for me, but it is one of the more advanced skills KSP players can learn. Sent a crew ship out, another docking with the station. Sent three more during the station operations, though some of the flights were for not-strictly-needed crew rotations. Sent a solar array, which was about a hundred OX-STATS on some girder segments, because the MPL is an electricity hog and I had no better solar panels. Sent a replacement solar array when I'd unlocked better panels, because the first one lagged like mad. Botched the transfer and it was out of fuel with a Mun encounter established. Flew one of the crew ships out to rendezvous with the solar array - which was on an inclined hyperbolic trajectory mind you - and bring it back to the station. Flew four Mun landings to different biomes, and one aborted attempt. Again, a Mun landing is somewhat routine for me but it is one of the major KSP skills. Stranded a Kerbal on the Mun (by jetpacking to the top of a cliff and running out of EVA fuel) and rescued them. Considering all that, I don't think the science gain was so OP. It wasn't majorly out of line with the rewards from some of the other complex missions I was running, such as Scansat scans and probe landings on all the moons of NewHorizons!Jool and Titanus. And like others have said, sure I could have run more Mun landings, but it's way more fun to do more varied missions.