PB666

I do not remember what i did first, the rocket stuff was easy, and i think I ran a few orbital transfers. However on my first day I clearly remember trying to get Jeb back into a space craft that kept running away from me. "Come here little space craft, be a good little space craft and stop spinning" The music was starting to get on my nerves and I was thinking, there is not sound in space, so why is this $#@& music. No matter what I did it would quickly go the opposite direction. I remember being incredibly disoriented, and eventually ran out of EVA fuel a couple of times, Jeb lost hopelessly floating in the blackness of space. I knew nothing about the "[" and "]" keys the light function . . . . . EVAs are still get the pulse rate up, the second I'm off the ship I am thinking.... - do I have the right angle is the ingame rotation limits going to interfere with landing - what is dTheta/T of the orbit how much time do I have before I am going the wrong direction? - do I need to rotate my ship (and did I place a remote control unit on the ship)? - are there obstructions that can interfere with grabbing I also remember the lander thinking, what an overengineered lander for the Mun, that was until I tried to land. lol. Poof. My epic and quality posts will be quickly forgotten by everyone except N. Korea, Spammers and the NSA.

Oh, damn, I was getting a warm cozy feeling from the conversation, but you provided the perfect seq-way for a couple of comments. "If A and If B and If C then D" styled conversations are never good and that's why I going to make one. Suppose one builds a space craft and one needs a huge spike of power, say every 30 minutes for science and communication, but the rest of the time electrical power is hardly being used. Therefore there is an excess of electrical power say 30% of the time that is not being used. Suppose that craft has alot of science equipment, and say after 2 years at a particular station that science is saturated and there is diminishing returns. Lets also say that its science can be done effectively at a range of orbits, from low earth to translunar. Suppose that the crafts energy gathering and EM drives where infinitely durable. Suppose that the electromagnetic drive was relatively lightweight then: 1. It could be used for station keeping 2. It could be used to slowly elevate orbit 3. It could be used during science complete cycle to transit the craft to a new location, for example and Lagrangian point where it can transfer to other planets. The drive would be ideal since one does not need to plan for the next experiment other than raising orbit. The would be like mars rovers in space, 6 months of planned operation and years of unplanned operation. Alternatively they could be like the philae lander . . . . . . Extending this logic one step further, the problem with ION drives as we know it is that their gases eventually expire and the charge grids eventually degrade (Or they are going to be huge things (like VASIMR) that consume lots of power. Still VASIMRs ISP is not great, and gas recharging is a problem. So if we are using ION drives as shuttles, and as long as they are shuttling back to low earth orbit then ION drives are just fine, but if not, eventually fuel limits the mission. An EM drive that picks up stable fuels from high earth orbits and shuttles it between distal sites with low thermodynamic energies (e.g. Lagrangian points of other satellite celestials) might also be a suitable mission. Sets of purely space problems can be divided along three lines IMO. 1. Transports that need to go to way far off destinations (pluto, alpha centauri, that hot new star with an ancestral-earth like planet) -Need lots of acceleration C = gravity(earths-surface) * year - for nearest star in a lifetime -Need a source of energy (like mass energy conversion close to 90%, and hv -> dV conversion of similar efficiency) for a nearest star venture - ----or------ - very patient. Waiting 10,000s of years for a star to make the right approach and the sending another 10,000 year mission to intercept. with patients you need some very good electronics and power supplies. 2. Transports that need huge bursts of power for very short intervals entering or breaking orbit for some short duration mission, and of course landing or simply carrying the fuel or supplies for landed missions. I should add to this one moving large asteroids. So EM drives are not suitable for the above. 3. Transports that can use a long slow steady source of thrust, that do not need to create huge dV and that drop their supplies off to 'the big boys' and then return back for more' Just to state, I have no complaint against 'renewable' low thrust engines, the problem is that any thruster cannot be applied to every problem. We do not see ION drives on cars or launches yet so . . . . . . And the third issue is this, the concept of IR spectrum and dispersed gases. Space is not devoid of inertia, for example solar winds have very diffuse gas but with high inertia/particle. Said particles have both absorption and emission spectrum. There is actually no particular need to go with complete em drive, one gets a bigger bang if one leverages the impulse against particles that that can be turned to move other directions, the efficiency over time may improve by finding mass for the massless drive. The key relationship that I observe is that the more mass one ejects, the more thrust force that is available, and the more energy that can be derived from the ejecta (like LF and Ox). The less mass one ejects per unit of engine mass the less force that is available, the higher ISP one can potentially generate, and the higher need for 'arm-stretched out' electrical power. The observation I make is that there is a need for drive with ISP in the 5000s to 15000s range, but that uses power more efficiently. Beyond 15,000s and given both the lack of electrical power is not really necessary since it does not greatly reduce vehicle weight in fuel. Most of the targets are limited to the inner solar system until more reliable power can be obtained. If one can come up with a cheaper source of power - say converts 10% of an atoms weight into electrical energy, then very high ISPs will be more useful, in theory, but in practice, the ability to convert electrical energy into that high of a directional 'impulse' in a confined space may have issues. The second observation is that without a more efficient solar panel of lower mass, the power equation starts to flatten out, when the weight of the craft exceeds 50% in solar cells, acceleration is reaching its saturation point. This is limiting anyway, so there needs to be a different power source.

If you bought on through steam, the somewhere like steam/steamapps/common/"kerbal space program" is the games root directory. one of the folders is gamedata another is parts. In "GameData" you will subfolder called Nasa, Squad and you may even add your own parts in your own folder. Inside Squad you will see parts and lots of subfolders and subsubfolders. In these subsubfolders you will find *.cfg which are basic text files and parameters you can change. All you have to do is: Just my two cents here. Mods come in two flavors. Parts and functions (notable for *.dll extensions) Part mods can be created by simply changing a parameter in the *.cfg. You can find said files in the "Gamedata" folder. search for "Kerbal Space Program" or "GameData" or "NASA" To do this: duplicate the file rename the duplicate modify the duplicate. -most people say: duplicate your parts directory first elswhere (like common in the root parent) and then tinker. Move the new mod into its original folder to test. I like risk so I just copy and paste in the Gamedata folder. You can update the mods in-game by going to KSC main screen and AltF12, the third tab has a button called "reload . . . . ." that loads. But if you add and use a mod, that assembly is now dependent on the mods name, so if you delete or change the name, the assembly will not load. For example if I copy and rename change the "MK1structural" cfg to say "MK1structural2X" cfg Then edit the 2X version by adding changing: "name = Mk1FuselageStructural2X" adding: "rescaleFactor = 2" changing:"title = Double-size Structural Fuselag" changing:"mass = 0.8" Save it and reload the game a new part 2wice the linear dimensions, 8x volume and weight will appear. I can also add fuel to the part or change the type of fuel the part has. The only thing I have to change to have a new glitchless part is the "name" identifier. It must be unique. If I do only that I have a new albeit redundant mod. For example if I add " RESOURCE { name = XenonGas amount = 10000 maxAmount = 10000 } } " to the bottom of the CFG an new Xenon storage tank will appear. I might want to change the price also since I hear X is very expensive on Kerbin. I need to change the ingame location of it by changing "category = FuelTank" The lines in MK1structural within the Parts\MK1 directory you can also change the dimension of the part, you can: turn that tank into a pipe, flatten it into a disk, or flattening on its side into a "wing" (e.g. nacell arm) In this way you can change part parameters in dozens of ways to get dozens of parts from a single starting part or you can make parts (using blender and unity utilities) and they are different from the stock parts in just about every way. The other type of mod are called function mods. These alter the way the game works or information you gain. They can also be new sounds, or new resources. MechJeb is one of these. Modulemanager is another. Unlike part mods, these often need to be updated frequently (with each new KSP patch) and may not work after new patches come out. MechJeb for instance uses both function and part mods.

Since they are four leggers i guess they do need a couple. Go back in time and insert arm DNA into the most recent common ancestors of the bears, that will fix it.

Like we helped the Iraqi's(2003), Palestinians (1920), El Salvador (70's and 80's), Cuba (1898-1960), Native Americans (1850-Present), Cambodians (1967-1974), Lybians (2012), Egypt (2012-Pres), Yemen (2003-Pres), Afganistan (1979-1995).... These all went so well we should go back in time and do more! The basic idea is that modern knowledge and technology can solve deep social problems. Its easy to make things worse, its not so easy to make them better.

Vacuum is just a degree of atmosphere. In space 'vacuum' is basically the point in which motion stops flowing like a fluid and starts moving like isolated particles. On kerbin I would guess its right around 32K. The ISP is a function of atmosphere function. On Kerbin it drops off at 2.6 or 1/2.6) per 5000 M. I do not know if ISP is a linear function of this, but I do know that much of the ISP gain is in the 1st 5000 M and ISP gain over 20,000 M. A miniscule fraction (like 0.1%) of ISP is gained between 36 and 70K I would expect that thrust would increase similarly in the 0 to 5000 M. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Atmosphere the scale height atmosphere constant for Kerbin is 5000 p(alt) = p(MSL) * e ^-(alt./scale height)

Harder at low atmosphere, easier at high altitude. For example the Nuclear engine will become useless as a launch engine. For aerospike it will not make a bit of difference.

E=mc^2. Interstellars still need mass to create energy, even if you don't eject it. If you want to travel 1/10th the speed of light, then you have to perfectly convert 10% of the fuel to energy and perfectly conserve the energy in light momentum. Also, lets we forget, those light beams are wasteful, since they still carry energy as well as imparting momentum. You also need 10% of the fuel to stop. The best mass energy conversion rates outside of supercolliders is below 1% so 1/10th the speed of light is technically no possible nor even approachable. The only potential for getting around this is having a ship that rides lasers and collects and emits the energy. Brownian motion would not tolerate success on small scales its only plausible on hideously large scales. Consider if we increased the speed by 1 magnitude (500,000 mph) over currently possible. At that speed it takes 1300 years to travel 1 light year, the nearest planet is 4 light years so thats around 5000 light years with no hope of stopping once we go there. Thats 250 human generations. IMO interstellar travel will require large asteroid like ships that can travel for 100,000s of years and are virtual microcosms. 97% of our own species is roughly that age, so. . . . . . Maybe the reason that aliens are not whizzing through our solar system, wait 100000 years, lol.

Thats the travelers technology paradox. If it takes 1000 years to get there in 50 years there will be a technology that gets you there 10 times as cheap and 10 times as fast.

I rescued a pilot with stayputnik probe on top of capsule. I think the reason its hard career because its not designed for new players. Without flight director its hard to transfer. But I practiced matching planes and transferring without the director in previous versions (when I was too ignorant to know how it worked). Im on hard mode right now, I spend all my funds upgrading facilities, however once I made it to Minmus a whole new game opened up. However the celestial intercepts were automatic in previous versions, now they are cryptic, and so you have to have practiced intercepting Mun or Minmus and know the dTheta between ship and celestial to know when to begin your transfer. Again practice helps. Keep an eye on how far the Apo supercedes the targets orbit and the dTheta (something like 135' for Mun or Minmus) I stopped playing hard because of the bugs. I created two work-arounds to deal with them and managing the bugs this game. Don't take missions just for science, there is alot of science around KSC that can be gathered, return you ship back to launch point and get 100% recovery of parts. Try to recover as much of each vehicle from missions, it may cost another parachute, struts or other structures to preserve craft. Engineers and scientist cannot fly, so using them as pilots is an act of courage or desperation.

Only if that individual lived for 1000 years. 50E-6 N at 16W and given 1KW per meter at 50% efficiency for solar translates into 0.0015 N per m^2 of panel. Lets say we had a ship with 1000 x 1000 meters of panel and ignored the weight of the panel. The ship could generate 1500 newton. 15km (earth debiotizing) diameter impactor has a mass of 4/3 pi 7500^3 times d (say 3) = 5.3E12 mass. At 1500 newtons accelartion would be 3E-9 meters/second or 3E-10g. The issue of moving to intercept the asteroid itself is a problem. 1000000 meters of panel has to way many kilotons, the dV of the entry would have to be tiny to gain orbit, it might take years to arrive that that speed and approach, and then landing on the asteroid is a whole different problem. One 1 meter/second of thrust would take how long? 100 years. Diverting objects from crossing earth's orbit is easier than making them hit the earth. First you have to find an object of size, some of then have high energy differences and planes that do no cross the earths, you would have to match planes and then cross orbits. If you're acceleration is too slow there is a good chance you will send the asteroid on a hyperbolic trajectory with earths upper atmosphere (drag would be immaterial) or on an escape orbit or collision orbit with some other body (like Jupiter). ION drives are far more dangerous, because in theory the ion drive potential is to create particles with the energy of a baseball from a single hydrogen atom. THis is unrealistic but particles with 2 x mass gain and ISPs in the 100,000s or 1,000,000s are conceivable. For very heavy payloads that include a nuclear power supply this might be very useful. You could even eject spent fuel in the drive.

A maglev train is propelled by magnetic attraction and repulsion. Friction is one way of creating 'an equal and opposite reaction'. - - - Updated - - - Its not a violation. Photons are a form of boson, it does not have mass (only fermions do). Imagine an atom that undergoes radioactive decay and releases a photon, in doing so the atom loses mass (E=mc^2). The photon carries the energy, while the photon is traveling it imparts no energy, while it is traveling it is simply a massless field. From the photons perspective time does not pass, when it reaches its target though it reveals its source and momentum. The photon is a force carrier, its almost if the photon receiver were next to the decaying particle when it decayed. It causes some bizarre paradoxs. If an event produces two photons, no matter how far they travel, the reception of one will effect the reception of the second no matter the distance or time elapsed. The true strangeness of the universe is masked by the fact that we live in a fermion dominated world this is dominated by the fact that things with 1/2 spins like to interact with everything, particularly in the unpaired state (e.g. Opaque epoch).

In the other threads there was a discussion about launches that travel from Kerbin to Lathe and back using jets. That would be unrealistic. Considerable scuff at the exploitative jet, but here is a use for Jets where the might, with the right technology be a use in real life. Granted balancing a Saturn V rocket on the back of a harrier jets flattened cousin would be a task, but this KSP and we don't have to worry to much about 'technical details'. Im sure the question of what is the telescope's base that is a 4x Scale mod of the 3200L 2M tank (Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank). It was empty but the extra mass simulates the weight of the reflector. There are 40 jet engines turbo fan on MK1 jet fuselage with two radial mounted air intakes attached to MGS. the fuselage feeds through the LF tank to the engine. Its got a maximum thrust to weight of 1.7g. If the program allowed it I would make it crewed to land, but since putting on ship on hold while landing other is not part of the game . . . . Eat your heart out NASA. ;^) - - - Updated - - - I forgot to add, the separation of the pad from the kerbodyne was tricky, those flares on the edge of the pad are sepratrons, required because the jets still have alot of residual lift, timing of the kerbodyne fire is immediate and full throttle after decoupling. Red Iron Cross might like the pad, lol.

Kerdollars K$ (most keyboards don't have the root symbol without a fetch)

I have 0.625, 0.884, 1.25, 1.767, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.0-7.5, 10.0 and I have a new size 14 tank that I am using for launch I call these F-half, F-three-quaters, F1, F1.5, F2, F3, F4, F6, F8, F12 THese are scale factors and scale-factor 1 typically = 1.25 some it should be SF1/2, -3/4, -1, -1.5, -2, -3, -4, -6, -8, -12 I have all of the tanks and engines and most adapters. Basically I can make a tall rocket without reverting to high ISP engines that has dV in the 10,000s. (think 20 to 30k). The biggest problem is segmental flexibility.

A quick answer to this statement. There is nothing pointing at the origins of dark energy, it is a virtual unknown in our universe. I should point out that mass is derived from energy, therefore any energetic centroid force should be attractive unless its repulsive character can be detected. Thus the dark energy may be attractive in nature, but the nature of that energy is unknown. Dark energy was hypothesized to explain why a universe that inflated, then slowed expansion, has started accelerating its expansion. The observation has been verified, but it still may not be perfectly characterized. On a second line of thought......there are physicist that have set the size of the universe at 46.6 billion light years in size. I don't necessarily subscribe to this figure, but a number of physicist believe that inflation had constraints particularly at its end when quantum forces governing the early phase gave rise to relativistic forces that resulted in the material universe. I personally don't think that CMB studies are defininative enough to define the end of the opaque period to that level of precision, the relativistic issues during the period have such a profound affect on relative inertia that this could be off by factors. A critique of any science is based on observable facts, Occam basically argued why create convoluted arguments when simple ones will due. In deference to Occam i think that we limit the Universe size to what which is consistent with the razor. According to theory however the universe contracts if its mass-energy equivilience exceeds a certain value, otherwise it expands. Since it is expanding it should be less than the value, and since we know the energy density then the size 13.8 billion years ago can be estimated and the size of the inflation can be estimate. If the reason the Universe is expanding is due to negative energy or bubbles sending out gravitational waves to our region of our universe, then the size of the inflatron could've been bigger. The keep point about pre-CMB events and dark-energy is they are veiled entities that are not observable. The essential problems with multiverses and string theory is that they rely on a set of observations and physics that are unavailable either due to technological limits or intrinsic opaqueness of our material world beyond a certain scalar frame. The current standard model is completely happy without either, but given a universe, expansion, constant CMB the model of cosmic origin is not happy without inflation. I can make a similar analogy between creation and evolution (though it will probably bother folks). I can argue that evolution exists because we can observe it now and its past events. However there comes a time in life history where the tools that we use to define evolution cease to explain earlier processes. Prior to these there is only speculation how evolution occurred and creation is a possibility. But this might only defer the problem, since that which created may have also needed to have been created (just as we create new life in the lab). If the fingerprint of the creator is not imbedded in the created then it is almost impossible to resolve the issue more intelligibly and the argument is more or less academic. ......The common problem of origins is that as branches eventually condense into critical transition points, and what happens before the transitions is masked by the branch itself, you need other branches to look into the problem further, but with our visible universe there will always only be one perspective that we can use.

Space-time during the inflation was messed up, the stretch co-occurred with inflation, but the limits of inflation are unknown. There is a wiki article that has placed various sizes on the Universe and some constraints on sizes based on interpretation of physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe There are issues, one of them being that changes from the end of CMB to present can greatly change age.

Having worked through the issues of lockups and other KSC bugs, i am back to give career mode a try. Once again, I get past Tier 4 (45 pt/techup) of the tech tree and problems started appearing. This particular bug occurs when trying to examine (right click) on KSC facilities. In certain cases the mouse locked up in other cases nothing happened. Only 2 buildings worked properly. Closing the game and restarting worked. The other 'minor' problem was a terrain fall through on a quest local, but it was survivable.

I just had a thought, though, you could use one of the transportable landing platforms, make it superstrong, and place jets around the periphery and use that to raise the launch pad to say 20,000 meters, then launch spacecraft, the problem is you would need an autorecycler that would land the pad. This would avoid all those problems of drag and cut the altitude of gain orbit but 20K. A launch of 20K would have virtually no drag and craft could immediately turn to 45'. As for the most unrealistic way to get to lathe. Use RCS thruster (which have no mass) and set the ISP to some insanely high number. This way you are only wasting mass on fuel, you could DL a fuel regenerator and get the total mass of fuel, tank and engine below 1. - - - Updated - - - Didn't I make this point the other day in the 'teachings of the Kerballah' post, KSP purism is self-contradictory....you have to create an artificial or contrived logic to justify it.

Just take a poodle and nerf it with 10,000 ISP. Simple solution to a complex problem.

Stock parts are better. I have hundreds of mods and I create new mods every day, but the cfg file I have only shown one here as an example.

Because the game designers did not want to create another resource specifically for LV-N That does not stop you however, you can create your own resource and mod tanks to put them into. Since hydrogen is a gas it would likely be in a large round tank, or you could mod the jet fuel tank to take hydrogen. The tricky part is creating the new resource. You might also give yourself a bonus and tweak the ISP of the engine to the modern equivilent. A bonus of using hydrogen, is that close to Kerbol you can harvest it, its something like 1 gram per year per meter^2 but . . . . . . . . . . . . So production hydrogen gas in water modulated reactor is not a good thing, think explosive pressures. The only serious nuclear accident in the US occurred in the 1961s, a worker was manually inserting fuel rods and he went to far, the reactor went prompt critical and all the water immediately vaporized resulting in the loss of reaction but, well ....., kind of KSPish. But anyway, the point is this, once you get to the point that your water is creating all kind of pressure and your uranium is oxidizing and making gas bubbles, you might be a few very short moments away from having reactor parts moving through your viscera at very high velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 In a nuclear reactor the design is basically such that you want to heat water beyond its boiling point but not much more, so neutrons that are released are 'teased' so that they are delayed from reaching their targets long enough, given the plant operators time enough to adjust rod insertions and contain.

The deflection force acting on the wing is only about 10% of the lift, and it produces high drag to lift. Bernoulli's 'force' produces most of the lift. A stall for example is not cause by the slowing of an aircraft, it occurs because the angle of attack exceeds (typically 18 degrees IIRC) causes air to separate from the airfoil on the tailing edge of the wings causing turbulence and a loss of pressure differential. Even though the deflective lift is greater, it is insufficient to compensate for the loss of Bernoulli's 'force' and the aircraft begins to fall at angles tangential to the wing direction. Ending a stall is not immediate, turning a wing exactly on the to zero angle of attack is followed by the replacement of disorganize air to laminar air flow over the wing, and then lift is restored. Near ground stalls are often catastrophic since there is in adequate vertical distance to reestablish lift and also change vertical vectors. In addition stalls are associated with shuttering (extreme turbulence) which make control surface function marginal. This behavior is the reason that aircraft are equipped with flaps. Flaps increase bernoullis but also drag (they create a large wind profile), but they reduce the need for high angles of attack which are both draggy and risky. As a craft speeds up its angle of attack for level flight or climb declines, it can retract flaps and through this repeated process the aircraft 'trims'. Eventually the elevator can be trimmed and the craft is mainly relying on its wingshape to keep altitude. By speeding up aircraft, despite greatly increasing the potential for drag actually reduce drag because Benoulli's lift allows them to trim deflecting surfaces that produce the most drag. The point is that there are many ways to create lift (engine Angle of attack and verticle thrust vectors, deflective lift, etc) but Bernoulli's 'force' is the most efficient lift per drag unit produced. Point of order here though. Why are we talking about level flight dynamics in KSP. The most important force that acts on launches is the pressure wave that builds up on ascending craft as they surpass the speed of sound, real world forces acting on non-aerodynamic designs far exceed bernoulli's force, deflective lift. I using MSFS with over 10,000 hours of flight from supercubs to SR71 blackbird (favorite is DC6B), kerbal has nothing on FS, the wings are boxy shaped and lack proper shape, they are pretty much driven by brute force rockets, that if you get pitch high enough the rockets vertical vector provides sufficient lift. The lift surfaces act more like sheets of plywood with defectors on the back. I suppose you could use small wing strips to make a inverted concave surface that resembles an aircraft's, but I wonder if the physics engine would recognize it and deliver lift?

Judging by some of the other messages, bugs in 0.90 can appear that make it extremely difficult to succeed. Hard mode lacks the ability to backup up the game in play. Even so in game backups may have already caught bugs that the player would rather not have. The solution is rather simple for windows 1. Create a shortcut from the [Kerbal Space Program's Root]\Kerbal space program\saves directory 2. After creating a career mode hard game and some play, close the game. 3. Shortcut to saves directory and copy and paste the [games] folder giving it a new name. 4. The new name automatically shows up on game relaunch. Repeat process every before every KSP launch. 5. If a game ending bug appears simply leave the game, delete malfunctioning game folder and launch backup folder. -This avoids the issue of having to edit the Persistent file for the game. Good for 2 reasons - Its not a strait forward or easy, particularly if you have a well progressed game - Its essentially a variant of god mode ability. Players can alter key object stats and 'resurrect' them if abused. -It will reverse events like pilot killing terrain fall-throughs. -One can back up and deal with bug misassigned crew (fired crew that end up in subsequent flights). -One can deal with issues like pilots or vessels 'trapped' within the terrain.* - Prevents a unusable character from persisting - Recover lost funds from trapped parts. The drawbacks are 2 fold: -You will lose progress since the last backup, but encourages player to quit and restart KSP more frequently, which will prolly reduce some of the bugs. -Its' a cheat on hard career mode no-save limitations. But IMO, its no more a cheat that editing the persistent file, where a person could add electricity to a derelict vehicle, resurrect a killed pilot, etc. The back-up will not permit a player to muddle through a hard mission as easily as editing the persistent file would. Failed mission will have to be repeated, so in this respect its half a cheat, since you can recover a pilot but not simultaneously recover the mission the pilot was on when the 'mishap' occurred. *If a recently made vehicle becomes trapped, the player may have to copy that vehicle to the new save fold, or repeat the construction process. This may however not be consistent with parts available during back-up, so to capture a lost vehicle the vehicle may have to be saved in a temporary folder and then added to the game once the parts become available. IOW delete the 'bad' folder after all the vehicles can be moved to the good folder or rebuild lost assemblies from scratch.

Made this