Hotel26

tl;dr I have installed KK six times and de-installed it a similar number times (6) within 30m. That's my track record. I contacted SIr @Caerfinon, O.K.E., yesterday, seeking professional help. With his help, I have been able to load KK & Kerbinside Remastered. I have long suspected KK doesn't work (well) on Linux. The problem (extracted from the full log) is: I am using an app launcher located in /home/kmk/Desktop to run KSP 1.11.2 -- which is located in /home/kmk/env/games/KSP/1.11.2.3077/ In consultation with Sir Caerfinon (yes, he just received his Knighthood via express email!), I executed a quick work-around, et voila, KK works (so far) on Linux. By the way, please check out Sir Caerfinon's new and thoroughly excellently helpful link: Getting Started With Kerbal Konstructs ... How good is that?! Anyway, I am posting the full log as a bug report and suggesting that a relative path, from the KK DLL, be used to locate its own assets., The .NET AppContext.BaseDirectory appears to be the most appropriate way to locate the starting point. Lucky Installation Number 7! Thank you, Caerfinon! Much indebted to you.

Hello, Ralph Kraken!!...

Ctl-f on this page does not reveal a single usage of the word, 'carrier'. Which is quite surprising given there is widespread 'carrier fever' in the forum at the moment, as any avid reader of e.g. WDYDIKT would know. A couple of evenings ago, I tricked up a rev'eng Mirage (not a RL Mirage) I found kicking around (since August, 2019) in my Ships/SPH, putting a chute and main-gear steering on it. That gave me an idea today, while bored at work -- an idea still Classified, I'm afraid. But stay tuned for a full report later today. Here it is. Mirage definitely benefits from its 4x Vitos, especially on take-off.

Understanding what you are hoping to achieve with the challenge, this makes sense. I'd suggest hybridization of the current format. That is, you post various contracts as you choose, but without restriction. If someone builds and submits a form of aircraft (role, purpose) "free-form" but that role appeals to you, you could formalize the type with a contract specification and then choose best-of-class submitted thereafter. (A bit like some of the Airline Challenges.) So, for example, someone submits a submarine-capable craft that is capable of being deployed from a carrier, or a cargo resupply plane that can land on a carrier; you respond with a contract specification; other interested parties submit craft in that category; you announce which one(s) you would select for your own fleet after enough entries are submitted in that class.

I wake up in the morning thinking about them and I go to bed at night, dreaming about them. (Think Marlon Brando in the street bellowing, "Hey SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADD!!")

Gee. I just place a Mk3 cabin on the Kerbin gameboard somewhere and call that a "town", similar to Monopoly. Build the town (Mk3) and (hand-waving) the airplanes will come. Real (procedural) airports would be wonderful, though. SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD????!! (Hear my plea?) (And, no, Thumbs Down, I have never gotten Kerbal Konstructs to work.)

I am not, nor ever will be, a realismo guy but I have an aim to build two carriers, Yamamoto and Nakajima. They're intended to be minimalist and effective in the KSP world. And mainly for fun landing planes on a small deck. But I thought I'd put some effort into personalizing the "island" for the new Nakajima, the bigger ship. KSP being Lego (and vice versa) and a bridge being a series of blocks with book-ends to hide the mess, I started by borrowing heavily from @chadgaskerman (whose work I truly admire and will never equal) and also from the astounding first entry into the projection of naval power, SwiS Carrier I "Praying Mantis" by @swjr-swis, from whom I've outright stolen his mast), but I am nevertheless pleased with the modest tailoring I have done and especially that the result is surprisingly clean (I think) compared to my usual shoddy work. Possibly the only surprising thing about this work is hidden away in the book-ends: 2x Hammer solid boosters to provide a resupply to visitors landing with the employment of a Sudden Arrest System (retros). And, finally, as a result of this job, I can say that "I have finally learned to love the bomb cargo bay attachment points" (thanks to @Starhawkand a comment made long ago about "mod-attach to a node"). Blooper: You hear about people forgetting a chute or a ladder... This time, I forgot to set the thrust on the Hammers to 0... A couple of instant red heat bars around the bridge were the only clues to cause of the very quickly ensuing detonation.

You were on the right track!

What's worked best for me is to depart at Moho's Ascending Node and reduce PE to Moho's altitude at its opposite DN -- and it additionally works as you drag out the injection maneuver node, to dial in the inclination adjustment. This latter doesn't have to be fussy: if you can get the inclination down from 7 deg to < 1, you're getting it with Oberth and you can finish it at the other end with Oberth. The big benefit is it makes getting an encounter a lot easier because your arrival orbit is so much better aligned with Moho's, meaning the encounter is not a pinhole intersection. This is, I think, a better approach than using a transfer window (although you still have to go at a particular time). The cost will be that, when you arrive at Moho's DN (and your ultimate rendez-vous point), you will need one more Moho orbit (approx.) to align that encounter. The benefit is its about the simplest technique I know for Moho. Note that Moho's DN is not too far from its own PE, which would be the optimum rendez-vous point in terms of matching orbital speeds (ignoring inclination). This is why DN arrival is preferred to AN. Here's the link, read through this: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/196048-when-is-the-annual-moho-transfer-again/

I spent the morning on further refinement of my new Nakajima class carrier, continuing the pursuit of Joint Chiefs of Staff "Minimalist Carrier Policy". Sea trials have commenced and this run yielded 45.8 m/s (164 kmh): It looks very much at this stage like it might be feasible to extend the project to attempt hydrofoil capability for Nakajima? (A shout-out to @chadgaskerman whose bridge I purloined for inspiration. (I'll revise all this during the final development.)) Nakajima carriers sport 12x Goliath engines arranged in two banks, amidships (used alone for turning) and stern (engaged additionally for cruise). The KSC naval base pilot corp insisted on salt-water bathing facilities (i.e. a ladder rescue system to get out of the shark-infested waters after failing to stop before "carrier's edge" during training)... UPDATED: a mock-up of a new bridge. Now a pastiche of borrowed ideas... Lots of Z-fighting.

You have made an excellent -- and totally valid -- point. No one need justify doing anything they want to do. Especially while they are having fun doing it. Hey, I had fun building rovers! And there's a science to it, I'll give you that. Then it became a question of 'opportunity cost': "If I can mine Fun at a rate of 0.001 giggles/second using this rover, or I can mine 2.5 giggles/second doing this other,...?" You get the point. (I'm the guy who has a rover stuck about 1/3 of the way West around Kerbin on a circumnavigation and it hasn't moved for ... donkey's years. It's just not the fastest way to explore, actually, although it has the advantage of you being up-close-and-personal. That's why I designed a hybrid that was part ground rover and part supersonic. I didn't use it as much as I thought I was going to, though.)

A year or two in to KSP, after a little orbital mechanics had penetrated my grey matter, a subtle revelation blossomed. The KSP system is a cleverly-constructed set of graded exercises in orbital mechanics. Each one of these unique puzzles, once attempted successfully, teaches something new, interesting and valuable. Maybe it's not what you find when you get to Dres but what you learn getting there.

Agree totally with this approach (and have specialized in it). I agree with "throw-away", too. And point out that if you simply reserve the last 800 m/s to go back to orbit and refuel, you can continue to use such indefinitely, even after establishing your mission beach head. Such vehicles can be used as personal transportation from one base to another. And what I wrote above is why I eventually gave up completely on rovers (personal choice) as a pitiful waste of time (not to be controversial). (Bon Voyage would have made a difference, but last time I used it, it did not support RTGs and/or fuel cells(?).) The only exception for rovers is those that are Mun dune buggies, purely for fun, show-jumping... "Life is short -- and the universe is infinite." Where I find the OP's question really relevant, though, is on Kerbin, for atmospheric flight ending in horizontal landings. I started compiling a small database of likely landing spots and it is quite precious information. I don't think e.g. SCANsat gives the kind of precision required to find a high-quality permanent airbase. (I have thought, in the past, about a mod for locating precisely this as you fly over...)

KSC naval forces now equipping with surplus MiG15b supersonic jets. This MiG 15 demonstrates a "drogue landing" on R6 at KSC naval base.

For fun, I built a small space station for tourists. (Not a lot of mods & cons.) All the components, including a Lance MP tug and this "Bucky Ball" station hub fit inside Mk3 cargo bays (3 flights to transport and assemble the whole deal). The tug is easily able to detach & transport 1 or more of the HAL passenger components to other locations in orbit. I computed today there's about 12.3 m3 of space inside the Bucky Ball (pi.r2.h) and I'm very tempted to clip some MP storage in there... so that would be, like, 1,500 kallons. Yeah, let's just call it "Kraken reparations"!

I would define "form factor" as the shape of something with special reference to how it is going to be used. Or, as Wikipedia says: "Form factor is a hardware design aspect that defines and prescribes the size, shape, and other physical specifications of components, particularly in electronics. A form factor may represent a broad class of similarly sized components, or it may prescribe a specific standard. It may also define an entire system, as in a computer form factor." As for the Hitchhiker, its mass is exactly what its Creator determined it to be. Whether you use it or not, is up to you.

Good! You need focus on the ship -- not on you on EVA, which is a separate vessel. And, with focus on the ship, you need either a Kerbal or a probe control (in comm with the network if you have Commnet active). So technically, you don't need the kerbal if you have some other form of control.

Right-click the tanks that need the fuel and the tank that has the fuel. Use Shift-Right-click to hold them open as you go, or Pin them open. The fuel amounts will be shown and you will be able to command one tank to fill or empty a particular resource. That fuel will flow to all other tanks with the resource. You won't be able to control a particular resource unless all other tanks have that resource. There is a KSP Setting for Tweakable pop-ups: you made need that for full control, but I have never had to use it. The Resource panel up in the top-right corner (toolbar) is invaluable and I fly with it open at all times. You can use it to open all tanks of a particular resource (which can then be pinned). Locking tanks off and fuel priorities are other, related topics for exploration. (Locking tanks does not affect the manual kind of fuel control discussed above, however.) Don't think any mods are required.

Yes, to the first assumption, and "not so" to the second. I'd assume heavier due to "longer trip duration (space for supplies, storage) plus radiation/micro-meteorite shielding". appearance, prefer "form factor", which is much more important than mere appearance. It's much easier to fit a cylindrical 2.5m part into a space vehicle (not just space stations). You can see the seating is oriented this way, too. Perfect for landers, positioned on the ground floor (e.g. Goblin)! Hitchhikers are great. (Check out "Hitchhiking to Moho".) I've used them many times (including just now: a module called "HAL"). (And not to say you cannot build aircraft with Hitchhikers... I've done it. But then: I am a "mad scientist"; from Krakpotistan.)

@Stewcumber Curious whether this was your problem?

Danger, Will Robinson! Scorpion at play... (wherein I once more join battle with infernal KSP Robotics.) So far; so good. Scorpion is a Paxmover-class airport service vehicle. That "stinger" goes way up over Mk3 cabins/fuselages; or worst case, will catch a wing. The other dock enables long-distance transportation on a flat-bed carrier (e.g. Pterodactyl).

Maybe another in my series of Break-Apart airplanes? [click + arrows] I decided I needed a Nissen Hut for accommodating off-duty Kerbals at .e.g Baikerbanur, Dessert Strip and the Island Airport.

So I have lately been thinking about a Cruise Climb concept. By hand, the way I fly this, to get an aircraft to the highest/fastest altitude it can maintain -- therefore, with low drag, meaning the nose is within a degree or so of prograde -- means I set the altitude for a known figure that the aircraft has plenty of power to go to unaided; once there, then tune the climb via climb rate. I pin AeroGUI open to watch what it reports as AoA (which is of the craft body, in this case). (Actually, these days, I just have Pitch in the KER HUD and fly that.) The strategy is to increase the climb rate when AoA is negative to get it near zero. As you climb higher, AoA will tend to climb higher and this is an indicator to reduce the climb rate, (sometimes by decrements into the decimals). One keeps increasing altitude and hopefully speed by keeping the AoA within the 1-degree zone. Eventually, the climb rate will be reduced near enough to zero that you might as well conclude you are at optimum cruise altitude. This exercise is essential at airplane design time, but then it is still necessary often to get the plane to cruise in normal flight. For shorter flights, you don't need to go so high, but for the longer ones, it can make an incredible difference to your range and is therefore very well worthwhile. Just a bit pains-taking. It would really be a benefit to just hit Cruise Climb and let a PID controller do the job even if it took 10-15m. For the descents, I either do a quick calculation of desired descent rate or aim at (or below) a target at the destination (Fly-By-Wire); and, in either case, set a speed on the bug to control power.

Not directly, but you can set both the rate of climb/descent and maintain a speed with power and you can limit the maximum pitch angle. (All these things, no doubt you've already found.) I do believe that maintaining speed, when it is dialed in, is a priority for AA and it will curtail the climb rate in favor; but not the reverse on descent. And this is still probably not exactly what you want. (I don't feel I've ever suffered for not having exactly what you specify, though.)

Still carriers... This one is a 1.3.1 build. The Habsburg... Quite plain but lots of deck space: about 3 times the area of the Yamamoto...