Stealthie

Yep, they're all new modules. Funny thing is, I USED to operate a system where I left an android tug in orbit around every planet I visited and I can see how docking a new module with that and using it to manoevre the new module into position might have confused the game but I don't think I suffered problems when using it to build space-stations. These days (out of laziness due to having heaps of in-game money) I just built a lift-motor and tug, saved it as a sub-assembly and then I build all my modules "upside down" in the VAB, tack the lift-motor onto the bottom of it and launch it.Once in space I discard the lift-motor section and leave myself with the tug segment to dock the modules of a station and then decouple it. Is there, perhaps, a time-limit on how long a partially complete base is considered "new" which might be causing me problems? As I said, when I first land my "command centre" module on an asteroid I DO get a tick for "a new base with antenna, docking port and power-gen". It's just that I'll then swap to a different craft (say, an accommodation module for 15 kerbals) and I'll then get a tick by THAT requirement and the "new base" tick vanishes - which doesn't worry me immediately because I realise THAT module doesn't have the antenna, dp and power gen. Then I land that module on the asteroid and you'd assume I'd get both ticks back again, but I don't. The other strange thing is that all the subsequent modules I land DO cause cause mission ticks to accumulate. If I'm landing a command centre to get the tick for "new base" and then I'm landing, say, an accommodation module and getting a tick for that but losing the "new base" tick, you'd think that when I went on to land, say, a laboratory I'd get a tick for that but lose the tick for the accommodation module. That doesn't happen though. Every subsequent module that I land DOES cause more and more things to get ticked-off the requirements list (and remain ticked). It's just the "new base" tick that seems to vanish as soon as I land a different module. I wonder if the solution might be something as simple as landing my modules in a different order? Is there any way to force the game to give me Asteroid base missions so I can experiment with different things? Worst-case-scenario is that I'll have to just build asteroid bases like an orbital station with a grappler on the end and spear them into the asteroid all in one go but I don't really want to do that 'cos it isn't very realistic.

I've only ever taken on something like half a dozen "build a base on a newly discovered asteroid" missions but this seems to happen every time... I accept the mission, I send out my trusty rock-grabber, harpoon a suitable asteroid and I get a message saying something like "This asteroid is suitable for the requirements of [company name]" so I drag it back to wherever they want it and commence landing the modules of my base on it. When I land the first module on it I'll get another "This asteroid is suitable for the requirements..." message and I'll get a green tick next to whatever mission criteria I've met with that particular module - including the one for "a new base with an antenna, docking port and power generating facilities". I'll then land more and more modules on the asteroid (Accommodation for X number of kerbals, Y fuel storage, power generators, laboratories etc) and I'll get more and more green ticks. Somewhere along the way I'll lose the tick next to the "A new base with a,dp and pgf" And so the mission can't be completed. I've tried re-docking with various modules, pulling them off the asteroid and re-landing them but I assume the problem is something to do with the base ceasing to be "new" at some point along the line. I use a similar strategy when landing a base on a planet (landing a command module with antenna, docking ports and small solar panels and then landing additional modules such as lab's, storage tanks etc and then docking them all together) and I've never had any problem doing it. Surely the game doesn't expect me to assemble a honking great base floating right next to the asteroid and then harpoon it into the asteroid all at the same time? I mean, I could do that if the game insists but it isn't very realistic and the result isn't going to be very nice to look at so I'd rather do things in a more realistic and aesthetically pleasing way if possible. Anybody got any ideas as to what I'm doing wrong or what I need to do differently to avoid failing these missions?

I'm afraid it won't be possible to provide a copy of my save file. I've just had every @!*%ing ship and space-station I've built get "stuck" in orbit in the mother of all kraken attacks, the likes of which I haven't seen since before KSP 0.9. Back then I was investing a lot of time in KSP but the bugs just made it a waste of effort so I ended up abandoning it. Since it looks like the kraken is back with a vengeance, KSP has once again been deleted from my PC. KSP could have been, IMO, THE best game & educational tool ever produced for the PC but it seems doomed to forever be a train-wreck. See you all after the next update.

Almost definitely due to running out of memory. I don't think the KSP log file is always to be believed regarding memory usage. I have a PC with 8gb of RAM and I also have a Logitech G15 keyboard, which has a dinky little LCD display which I use to monitor memory usage. I've often noticed that, while reverting a flight or entering the space centre, the memory usage will spike to noticeably more than 50% (presumably due to KSP using all of 4gb and then some other system resources using a few % RAM too), the game will crash but the log-file will tell me that only something like 43% of memory was in use.

Nobody? Nobody else ever had this or know of a solution? Tried another "recover from surface" mission and had the same problem. This time I landed on the Mun surface, did a quicksave and then resorted to desperate measures by "ramming" the surface to see if I could get to the part I was supposed to be recovering. Inevitably, my ship just got damaged when it hit the surface and I did a quickload. Upon reloading, I saw the part I was supposed to be recovering, hovering around 10m above the Mun surface. After the load was complete it gently floated downward, straight through the Mun surface and came to rest around 300m below the surface. If I switch vessels while the part is still above the surface I can follow it as it clips below the surface and then just "floats" there, 300m below the surface. It occurs to me that, if I was really desperate, I could build a big, flat, ship and then land it on the surface directly above the object, do a quicksave and then quickload and then, when the object reloads it should be just above the ship and would settle ON the ship, thus allowing me to recover it - with a bit of trial & error. Not something I'm going to bother with just to recover parts but I might give it a go if there is ever a Kerbal life at stake. It certainly seems like there's a problem with how these parts, which you're supposed to recover, are positioned though. FWIW, I've also tried deliberately dropping various parts of my own ships (fuel tanks, probes etc) from low Munar altitude and THEY always splat into the surface just as they should. The problem seems only to occur with the parts the game generates for the player to recover.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think I've EVER had one of these failures when I'm making a "quick & dirty" landing out in the middle of nowhere. They ALWAYS seem to happen when I'm on final approach to the KSC, and usually when I'm being all sensible and boring, coming in on a sensible glide-slope at a sensible speed. Is it possible that proximity to the KSC has something to do with this?

Just got around to installing KSP 1.0.4 - totally unmodded - and started a career game. Did a few of the regular start-up missions, tested some parts, rescued a few kerbals, launched a couple of satellites, ferried some tourists around etc. Saw a mission which required me to recover an object from the surface of the Mun. Hadn't yet been to the Mun (in this game) and I've never recovered an object from a planet's surface before so I thought I'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone by doing my first Mun landing at the site where the object was supposed to be in order to see what it was so I could build something suitable to recover it. The object was in a crater on the South of the Mun's surface. Landed nearby, in the crater, and EVA'd toward it. It turns out, however that the closest I can get to the object is 282.8m away. At that point, whichever way I walk, I get further away from it again. If I move the camera to an overhead view I can see the label for the object, apparently 282.8m directly below the crater floor. So, should I be spending time trying to find the entrance to some kind of cave-system on the Mun's surface or is this just a bug and the object is positioned below the Mun's surface? Apologies if this is a known bug. I tend to only play short bursts of KSP these days, when a new version becomes available.

I have this little "rule" where I only let Mechjeb loose on drone ships. I figure that, in real life, a drone ship intended to, say, punt cargo around in orbit would have the AI required to do it's job so it's okay to let mechjeb do that work in KSP. So, I built a ridiculously complex model of the ISS, all launched piece by piece, built a lot of the Station Science mod' into it and set about using it as a science factory. I built a couple of small drone ships to go out and grab the experiment pods off a shuttle and hook them up to the ISS (they fit nicely into where the experiment pod is on the ISS Kibo lab') and I was quite proud of how magnificent it looked and how efficiently and gracefully the drones did their jobs. Right up to the point where one of them lost the plot and reversed clean through the station solar array and, while I was busy wincing over all the bits of broken solar panel fluttering around, it collided with the SS Spectrometron, caused a huge explosion and my station was no more. Many Kerbals lost their lives that day. Oddly enough, the drone survived until I decided to torture it to death by de-orbiting it and then telling it to try and set up a rendezvous with the remains of the station while it plummeted to it's doom.

Hi folks, first post here so be gentle. I KNOW the IR readme says that you shouldn't connect Clampotrons directly to hinges but, unless I'm mistaken, that's not the full extent of the problem. I tried building a Shuttle with a "payload deployment arm" using an IR hinge stuck to the back of the cockpit, a couple of girders and then a Clampotron and I'm having problems. On the launchpad the hinge works fine. If I detach the payload in space the hinge continues to work fine. If I re-dock with the payload the hinge still works fine. However, when I dock with another craft, such as when I'm trying to use the shuttle to carry a cargo up to a space station, and then detach the cargo I find that my hinge stops working. It seems, to me, that the problem is something to do with 2 ships docking which screws up the way IR works. I'm sure somebody has a definitive answer to this. I did google it but it's one of those things where there's so much stuff about it, and most of it turns out to be about entirely different things, that it's tough to find relevant information. Anybody know if there IS a reliable way to make use of an IR hinge in an assembly that also uses clampotrons and which will dock with other ships? Odd thing is, at one point I built an ISS-style solar array for my space station and used IR hinges to fold it up flat against the sides of the launch vehicle, got it into space, detached the array from the launch vehicle (it was attached via a clampotron snr), picked it up using an orbital tug fitted with a clampotron snr, moved it across to my station and attached it to a node via the clampotron snr and then, after all that docking and undocking, when I finally came to deploy the array... the hinges all worked perfectly. So it must be possible to use IR hinges in conjunction with clampotrons in certain circumstances. Or, is it only the standard clampotron which causes IR to throw a fit, and the clampotron snr doesn't cause the problem? Back to KSP, I guess...