Gaarst

I like to think of KSP2 as a major update rather than a whole new game. An engine change for example: if Squad start to feel the need for a custom KSP engine in the late development of the game because Unity no longer fits their ambitions, then why not a KSP2 with a KerbalEngine. Not saying it's going to happen though... but if it does I'd rather a massive overhaul of the game/gameplay than a new game with the sole purpose of being an eye-candy. @worir4 What about KSP 1.10 ?

output_log.txt is usually more useful for determining the cause of a crash. A list of mods is also helpful.

I think it changes ore concentrations and nothing else.

Can someone explain to me the actual way to use the interstages ? So far, I've been attaching the top floating node of the interstage to the engine and then adjust extra height until the top of the fairing reaches the upper stage tank. But I'm not really sure that is the way to do it: it doesn't allow me to ignite the engine in the same stage as the decoupling (stowed) so I have to first decouple then ignite the engine. Also, I'm not really sure how I should organise the staging, using the side fairings or the decoupler icons for staging seems to make no difference. Help is appreciated !

You want to be an astronaut or simply go to space ? If it's just space, then study business/finances and become a billionaire. Then use your billions to go to space or create a space company. About 500 astronauts have lived since we went to space, and there are over 1800 billionaires today. Seriously now, I wish you good luck, you'll need it.

Depends on the design, some rockets are extremely stiff while others behave like noodles. Screenshots would be helpful for a precise solutions but here are a few things you can do to reduce wobbling: Add struts Reduce gimbal on your engines Disable SAS (beware you'll have to stabilise the rocket yourself) Disable reactions wheels: less control, but also less wobble Avoid having reaction wheels far away from the CoM (command pods on the top of the rocket are a good example of this) Control the rocket from a part closer to the CoM of the rocket: the CoM doesn't wobble a lot and SAS is applied at the controlling part (not CoM), so SAS will not overcompensate for the wobbling, which would cause even more wobbling. Make the rocket shorter/thicker: tall and thin rocket are more wobbly Try to avoid linking putting light/small parts between heavier ones: the joints are usually weaker and the rocket will wobble more (especially the large reaction wheel between two tanks) Reduce the number of parts as much as you can. Not always possible, but often the simplest and best solution. If you're that desperate, install Kerbal Joint Reinforcement

F4 disables vessel indicators in "staging" view. Chances are you pressed it while quicksaving (F5). I think it resets when you restart the game, if the game is still running, simply press F4 to get the indicators/distances back.

Did you not lock your legs ?

@Bill Phil @worir4 I agree, a difference should be made between not knowing and knowing wrong. But reading this thread (and the previous ones) left me with the impression that some don't bother making this difference and make the whole thing sound extremely condescending towards others, with no distinction whatsoever.

Playing mostly RSS here, so spaceplanes are not that much of an option. I never really been into spaceplanes anyway, I've made a few recently, but just find them boring and awfully long to fly. Also, piloting a plane with a keyboard is kinda tedious. Still, I like firing up some VTHLs (understand small shuttle on top of a rocket) from time to time, especially for LEO stations crew transfers.

Are we really doing one of those "we are so superior because we know stuff about space/physics/science that other don't because they have no interest in it at all" thread again ? I don't care about, say XVIth century geopolitics, and I'm perfectly happy not knowing anything about it and not being forced to learn some useless facts that I will never use in my everyday life; even if historians are going to take me for a fool because it is actually so important to the world powers balance for centuries up to today. I'm wondering what would a history/economics/politics forum think about us, doing nothing but stargazing and so far from the real world's problems, or so ignorant about how the world and our society works...

Luxembourg is a tax haven. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of companies about to move some serious cash around made it their HQ.

I wouldn't be so sure, the SLS is an actual rocket, unlike some stupid concept I'm not going to name here that drained NASA's billions for 40 years and did bring somewhat of a dark age of spaceflight. Even if the SLS doesn't fulfill its planned goals, it will still be useful for putting things in orbit for a reasonable (depending on how spaceflight market evolves) cost. Anyway, seeing the struggle NASA had to get its heavy launcher, it's going to be the same for any ambitious project of the same kind. No more going to the Moon in 10 years...

Nothing to do there as these errors are caused by limited accuracy in the variables used for orbital calculations. Different types of numbers have different accuracies (IDK if KSP uses floats, doubles or whatever) but you're never going to get 100% precision. These inaccuracies are what lead to the wobble of almost-circular orbit and the randomness of flybys. The best thing you can do there is to add some fuel in your ships to account for corrections burns, recall that even real spacecrafts often do correction burns during interplanetary missions. And for the atmosphere, there were some changes from 104 to 105, Duna's atmosphere being really thin, the difference in drag can be significant as atmosphere is no longer dense enough to allow you to open chutes with just aerobraking. What I do is consider Duna landings as atmosphere-less landings and take enough dV in my lander to do a fully powered landing, or at least to allow them to slow down enough to open chutes.

Having used the T3 runway (sandbox) a lot for speed tests, I can assure you that it is smooth, but even the most symmetrical craft will want to get off the center at high speed (this can be quite dramatic when over Mach 1). But I think the veering off is due to the wheels mechanics and aerodynamics. If I had to guess a cause I'd say floating point operations precision limitations (same thing as for wobbly orbits): for something relying a lot on symmetry like a plane or something going very fast, the slightest change in lift or grip can move it, and as you go off prograde, the sideways force will get stronger. This or the wheels mechanics being wonky. This is a good thing because it is supposed to change in 1.1, with a chance for this to disappear. And also, FYI, the runway is smoother than the ground around it. It is so smooth that it is actually flatter than Kerbin, which is why your planes accelerate towards the centre if you leave them at one edge without brakes.

I don't think SpaceX plans on doing 30 launches this year, and I also don't think that they are going to reuse recovered stages that soon. They can't even recover them successfully yet. Recovering a 2nd stage at 7 km/s is a lot harder than a 1st stage at 2 km/s. You'd need heavy shielding and this will greatly reduce the launcher's efficiency. Then again, I don't see this happening this soon. The SABRE engine has been in development for over 20 years, without much success. While a success in a few years is very possible, it is not guaranteed. Establishing a colony on Mars ? When we haven't been to the Moon for 50 years, and when the only launcher that is capable of setting up a Mars mission would have flown only once ? Also, the MCT is supposed to be the big rocket that sends 100 people to Mars ? I don't think it is going to take off in 4 years, but why not, after all ? Nothing to say about that, other than good luck to them ! According to the current schedule, SLS's second flight is planned in these years, and it is supposed to put people in Moon orbit. The thing is, only one manned mission is planned for now, not two in a row. They will have to choose between sending more people there, or sending the Europa Clipper. And we are going to find Prothean artifacts on Mars ? While it would be the best thing that could happen to the space industry, such a cooperation is not very likely, and it sending people on the Moon that soon is even less likely. Elon Musk's optimism... Even though this would be great, I seriously doubt it's going to happen. And SpaceX are not magicians, if a cooperation of the most powerful countries' space agencies esablish a small lunar base, then I don't think a private company will land 100 people on Mars in the meantime. A mission this size is longer to plan, and SpaceX are not going to launch 100 people to Mars on their first mission there. Overall, this, while possible, is extremely optimistic. Even if I am a bit pessimistic, there are just so much parameters that could screw up SpaceX's miraculous Mars colonisation plans. Amongst which: money, time (building space stuff takes time; the bigger, the more time it takes) and possible failures and other unplanned events. For my optimistic thoughts, take basically what you said, add a few years between each major mission, and replace SpaceX by a cooperation of space agencies and companies, that is still to be created (and AFAIK such cooperations are not even planned).

Oh, sorry then, for some reason I thought they only packed 300 m/s of dV. Then, making Mun orbit with a Kerbal is very possible.

Due to this being theoretically impossible, I'd really like to see screenshots of that. So that I can know if this can actually be done before crashing all my kerbals trying...

Maybe™

First, this map is outdated and somewhat confusing, look here for an updated one for 1.0.5. Second, as I mentioned earlier, the 40 km/s figure is indeed for a landing and take off from Jool's surface. For a low Jool orbit, from LKO, you'd need about 5 km/s to get there, and as much to get back. That is without aerobraking, which can cut your dV requirements by 3000 in this case, but seeing your ship, it probably won't survive an aerobraking at Jool.

If you want to get to Jool faster than light, then this might be accurate, otherwise it is way too big. I suppose you are looking at a "subway" dV map, if so, make sure that you are reading the right things. 100 km/s of dV might be the requirements to land and orbit from Jool's surface... except that Jool doesn't really have a surface (actually yes, but it is made of explodium) and an extremely dense atmosphere, so don't pay attention to these numbers as dV requirements for a Jool landing will be insanely high and as it is no longer possible to land on Jool. Edit: just looked at a dV map and transfer window planner: dV map mentions 14 km/s for a landing, and the highest I could get with a transfer window planner was 19 km/s. So I really don't know where these numbers come from, are you sure you didn't add a 0 somewhere ?

Should there be anything concerning ? Unless you're planning on landing, 5 km/s of dV is enough to get you anywhere and back (maybe not Moho depending on the inclination difference). Anyway, if you're really concerned about dV, you might want to take a look at Kerbal Engineer which does the calculation for you (accurately most of the time).

Yes, it does increments of 0.125m by default (IIRC), but you can use the slider to fine tune it a lot more precisely.

Living billions of years is pointless if you can't survive 1 day before being eaten by a predator or starving. Besides the biological processes of aging that make it extremely hard to achieve immortality, it is not that useful as short term surviving is more important than long term for most species. The only species for which surviving isn't that much of a concern anymore is man; but you're not getting immortal in 10,000 years, evolution takes a lot more time, especially for processes involving major changes in cellular/DNA mechanics. And also, the major factor that makes a genetic trait appear and spread is reproduction. Sure an immortal being is able to have a lot more descendants than a mortal one. But 10 generations of mortal being will have as much descendants as one in 10 generations. Even if immortality appears as a trait, its chances to spread to the whole species are very small. Also, for a population made of immortal beings, you are quickly going to run into surpopulation and consanguinity issues. Immortal or not, you are going to starve if your species eats all food in the region; and while animals don't care about ethics of incest, it is still a bad thing genetically, allowing genetic diseases to spread much more.

If the problem started occuring when you put the game in fullscreen, try deleting settings.cfg. This will reset your KSP settings, including resolution and windowed/fullscreen. There might be a small chance for it to work. More of a workaround than a real solution though, so your logs would still be helpful.