airelibre

I tried again, and I added something to the other side of the decoupler, but still nothing happened: http://imgur.com/a/wcDGD#0

But I have tried twice now, where I have all the conditions met, and there is no 'run test part' option, so I think "it must want me to test it by activating it" but the contract doesn't get completed in doing so.

Exactly. Oh well, my question has been answered.

OMG, is there any way to stop it happening?

It's pretty annoying.

I'm sure there's a lot of people like me who have a look round every so often without really contributing much. Don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

But when I stage it it's no longer a part of the vehicle and I can't test it!!

I have a couple of contracts which involve testing parts - the TT70 radial decoupler and the structural pylon. When I get ticks by all the prerequisites such as altitude and speed, right clicking on the parts only give the option of decoupling (I tried that, but it count as testing, and just means I wasted the time of two flights!). Is this a bug or am I doing something stupid?

Worked with a fresh install

Ok, thanks for the explanation and the suggestion.

Why did you have to do that? No one looks at this forum.

No, I thought they come with it anyway, no? And I have Astronomer's Visual Pack, but I'm confused by these things because they all seem to use the same parts, like the City Lights and Clouds.

The Environmental Visual Enhancements mod hasn't been updated, and although several people have said that it still works fine, for me it doesn't. There are no clouds on Kerbin, and it's really putting me off playing the game now that I've got used to it with clouds. Is there an alternative for providing clouds?

Who's to say there are not already female Kerbals? It's no less crazy than the fact that all of them look exactly the same except for facial expressions. Or maybe there is only one gender of Kerbal. And if they do bring in sexually differentiated Kerbals, why should they look like stereotypical human females? (Long hair, longer eyelashes etc.)

For someone who likes earning money in games (like me), this is great. I've only just started on 0.24 recently and already have a few million funds. I enjoy trying to complete the contracts with the greatest profit possible, and I have plenty left over for my own projects. One tip is to have a few probes orbiting as many planetary bodies as possible. I can't count how many times I get contracts like "Science from around Kerbin" and it's just a simple matter of switching to my space station for a quick crew report and cash injection.

Thanks, that seems very plausible. I'm just going to delete that craft since the contract disappeared with all the bugs and I'm scared of flying the craft again, but I will bare in mind your suggestion of the cause so that I can diagnose future bugs like this.

1. Yes (if that's the default, because I haven't opened x64 on purpose) 2. Mods: Toolbar, Engineer Chatterer Distant Object Hotrockets FX Smokescreen Alarm Clock Jool Rings Texture Replacer Environmental Visual Enhancements City Lights, Clouds KAS Docking Port Aligner So quite a few but nowhere near some people, and I don't think any are beasts mods? (3. No) 4. Haven't checked. 5. Don't know how to check It may be, as you say, to do with the RAM. In general, my laptop is very good but for some reason every now and then it takes a funny turn and produces all sorts of errors or crashes over the smallest thing. In this case the rocket is not large at all compared to some I have launched so I don't know why the RAM would be overloaded but as I say sometimes the laptop bugs out for no apparent reason.

Here are the modules: http://imgur.com/a/V8ESy <iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="//imgur.com/a/V8ESy/embed"></iframe> (Don't know how to do this. ) The only mods I use which are possibly relevant are KAS and Kerbal Engineer.

I'm trying to set up a base at the South Pole as a kind of training facility and practice for bases on other planets. I have three modules which I don't want to have wheels or engines, but I also have a 30 ton transporting vehicle which I will fly in by rocket, on a steep trajectory so I don't have to worry about air resistance effects (I don't have FAR). Is it possible to make a plane large enough to transport 5-10 ton weights a quarter of the way around Kerbin? I have a 14 ton plane which flies easily. When I removed half the fuel and strapped on the smallest 5-6 ton module it could still take off but it did back flips because the COM was higher than the COL and COT. Maybe with adjustments it would work.

I started off trying to do a contract where I have to test the LFB KR 1X2 in Munar orbit. For some reason this contract was giving me 2.2 million funds for completion which is massive in my experience (I have only just started playing in .24 and missions to Duna, Eve etc. are all for only a few hundred thousand). Do the funds offered increase as you go on? Anyway I made a pretty basic design, emptying the LFB KR 1X2 and attaching two S3 KS-25x4 with the appropriate tanks. I also added probes, SAS batteries and solar panels, and Kerbal Engineer parts. +6 Long boosters All was going well when I got to low kerbin orbit and I transferred nearly all the fuel from the side tanks to the test tank so I could deorbit the side tanks and have enough in the test tank to reach Munar orbit. I deorbited the two side tanks, then: Bug 1 Switching back to the test tank, everything attached to it was gone - no control, electricity, orbit data - just the tank. Also, Kerbin had "disappeared": not one of those ones where it goes completely or turns into a small blue disk, but it had turned mostly white with clouds (I have the enhancement mod installed). I switched to map and everything was fine there but same situation when switching back. I switched to another craft orbiting Moho and then back to the test craft and then Bug 2 Same story as last time, but this time pressing buttons like Exit and Space Center don't work: there is an animation but nothing happens. I quit using ALT + F4 and restart. Bug 3 Try again, this time the view in normal mode constantly zooms out without me doing anything: within say 30 seconds Kerbol starts to disappear from view and the zoom out continues. Switching to map mode I can see Kerbal but twisted to one side and off centre, also the background stars are visible and if I zoom in far enough I can see a different craft (my space centre). This is where I really start to worry as maybe my whole save is corrupted, and I did nothing to provoke it. I kill the program again, restart and delete the craft from the Tracking Station. Everything seems fine now (hopefully!) apart from Bug 4 All my current contracts have gone, and the completed ones are not visible in the mission control building. The money I earned is still there as is the reputation, but I'm worried that come a few years' time I will lose 2.2 million funds for not completing the mission that started all this off. Also worried there are still problems in the aftermath of all these bugs, that I still haven't noticed yet. Has anyone else noticed these kinds of bugs, and is there a better way I could have handled it or something I should do now before continuing with the save?

Nice survey! Plus I'm number 100 Makes me feel better that most people are like me and don't like screwing up missions or losing Kerbals. I do really enjoy watching people's failures, intentional nonsense and tormenting of Kerbals on YouTube (in particular Danny!) but I always wondered why I get so pissed off/upset at my own mission failures when these guys thrive off it.

Thanks all, all the answers are starting to "click" in my head, I just think I need more time for it to sink in, and maybe some experiments in KSP to see it happen before my eyes.

Why would you crash? I need actual numbers to be convinced, otherwise I could just say that in the second case you also would come down safely. Also, why do you write wif instead of if? I thought it was a mistake the first time but you wrote it twice so I guess it's on purpose.

Hmm, I'm still not sure. I think the maths would actually be useful for me, if someone can provide a simple example.

I've had a look around and still haven't found an explanation good enough to satisfy my inquisitive mind! I can't get past the fact that from the same height and starting speed, you convert the same amount of gpe to kinetic energy by the time you reach the surface, so to cancel out that gained ke you have to burn retrograde, and surely it doesn't matter if you do that slowly or in one quick suicide burn close to the surface, it will be the same delta v and therefore the same amount of fuel expended. What is wrong with my reasoning?