Skystorm

I would agree but also changing the starting celestial body, the starting condition as well as the ending conditions. For example, suppose I am building a lander that needs to get from Duna Orbit to the surface and back to orbit. This is impossible to do with the trip planner. I would be necessary to control: Adjusting my starting delta-V to plan things like return trip segments. Determine which segments should be vacuum Isp vs. atmospheric Isp instead of them all being the vacuum. The starting celestial body The starting situation such as being landed or in orbit Accounting for aerobraking to reduce delta-V requirements pulling into orbit or landing. Using fully propulsive or parachutes plus propulsive thrust when landing (Ex: Duna). Adding intermediate celestial bodies and situations The ending celestial body The ending situation. I should be able to plan starting from the Kerbin launch page, getting to orbit, transferring to Duna, and aerobraking into a circular orbit. Then transferring back to Kerbin and aerobraking using a skip re-entry and landing using parachutes.

Sometimes the craft will also lose its control point if it had multiple when undocked. Both craft should retain their original control from here locations and orientations when undocking and sas setting (or at least stability assist if it wasn't the control point). For example, a space station with SAS enabled oriented in the Normal direction with a starship attached to a docking port. The space station is the control point (control from here location). When the space station undocks, the space station retains its control point and remains with SAS enabled, oriented in the Normal direction. The starship when undocked, because it was not the control point, should only have stability assist enabled to keep it steady and facing towards the docking port to which it was connected. It should not inherit a SAS orientation because its control point will likely have a different front-facing direction than the vessel or station to which it was docked and would cause it to immediately change its orientation upon undocking. This can partially be accomplished by choosing to undock using the docking port attached to the vessel that should retains its control point and SAS configuration. However, the vessel that was undocked has all SAS and stability assist turned off.

Lights also do not seem to shine on other objects in the VAB which can make adjusting things like spot lights hit and miss and/or need to be adjusted in flight. When using things like dome lights or light strips to illuminate an area it is impossible to tell whether the light/strip is sufficient to provide the desired illumination.

I agree, and this was a feature we had with KSP1 removing from symmetry. Also, having more/higher symmetry options beyond 8x would be great as well.

@AngryBaer The difference is that an airplane's wings are designed to flex and is completely intentional. Not so much for rockets. More information:

I just sent two identical space planes up on a single rocket. Everything was perfect until I docked the second space plane to my fuel station. At some point after docking the first space, the first space plane became a "jumbled" mess of parts while docking the second space plane. The far space plane docked to this station is intact and was docked last. Note the near space plane parts are jumbled while the far space plane is intact. Here is what the two space planes originally looked like attached to the launcher. And final a view of the space plane design.

If you installed via Steam you may be able to roll back to a previous version using the Betas list.

Testing out a new ship and a ring station. Just finished re-fueling and undocking. Started building a new modular fuel depot in a 400 km circular orbit. It'll hold 512 T of fuel and 80 T of monopropellant when finished.

@running_bird This is not the release version. This is Early Access. And that issue *IS* fixed. So yes, it will be fixed by release.

@running_bird Presumably they are referring to hiding categories of things from the map such as probes, flags, capsules, debris as in KSP 1. However, I'm not seeing it in the Map view. Perhaps it is in the Tracking Station view.

@Scarecrow71 You can create interstage fairings by using the engine plate and adjusting the bottom node distance to your liking. Attaching something to the other end automatically creates a fairing.

So I finally had some time to take one of the landers down to the surface but not without a few issues. I figured the struts would cause problems getting the landers out of the bay and they did. Fixing this required editing the save game to remove the struts followed by undocking the vessel. Not doing this in the correct order results in what appears to work at first until you realize it still thinks they are the same vessel. First, make sure that you have NOT tried to undock the vessel locked down by the struts. Unfortunately, you may have to go back to a previous save to find one. Backup your saved game. If the correct save game is loaded then creating a new save works. Open your saved game in a text editor. You will need to find the correct instances of a part named "strut_1v_extensible". For each strut there will be two (2) of these because they are the endpoints for the strut. You'll have to figure out which ones are the correct ones. Each of these endpoint parts is a JSON object with lots of properties and may be several hundred lines long. Load the saved game after you finish the updates. If you did everything correctly, the struts will be gone but the vessels will still be docked. At this point you can safely undock and the game will treat them as separate vessels. Here is a sample of what the start of the strut JSON looks like. Note that in this example the object starts on line 81520 for me and ended on 81719. It was nearly 200 lines long and was just one of the two endpoints for that strut. The second problem I ran into was that deploying the parachutes and drogues for some reason disabled the engines. Normally this would just merge the stages and the engines should still work but given the thinness of the atmosphere I didn't have time to fix it. However, a workaround is to drag the engines and chutes into a single combined stage and they should once again work. All I can say is save often because it will save you a lot of needless frustration not to mention many kerbal lives. And so without further ado, here is the crew of lander 1 on the surface of Duna. The chutes were able to slow my vertical velocity to under 30 m/s and the engines just needed to slow my descent to under 10 m/s for the landing phase. As anticipated, it only required 55 m/s for the entry burn and 150 m/s for the landing burn, much less than a fully propulsive landing. I can easily get back into orbit with over 2,650 m/s of fuel remaining.

My entry consists of two transfer vehicles, a space station, a small space tug, and 2x landers in orbit around Duna. The space station consists of a 4-person module, large hub, two wayfarer modules, 2x trusses with solar panels, and large methalox and monopropellant tanks. All modules are docked together using large docking ports. Docked to the bottom of the station is the transfer vehicle. Inside the transfer vehicle bay is a small tug to move the trusses and other small cargo. The transfer vehicle is powered by 50t of hydrogen and a LV-SW "SWERV" engine. Here is the station and transfer vehicle in orbit around Duna. The small tug is docked in the transfer vehicle's cargo bay. This vehicle has a single kerbonaut. The second transfer vehicle contains 2x landers each with around 2,900 m/s of delta-V which should be able to land and return once each. Both landers have heat shields, parachutes and drogues which should allow the use of aero-breaking for the landing so as to consume much less fuel than a fully propulsive landing. Each lander has two groups of four 24-77 "Twitch" landing engines for a total of 8x engines per lander. This is the same base transfer vehicle as above except that it has a double-cargo bay with 2x landers. Each lander has a full crew of four (4) kerbonauts each for a total of eight (8) kerbonauts. The transfer vehicle and landers can dock to the main station when needed. I ran out of time this weekend before I could take one of the landers down to the surface, but perhaps soon(TM).

In order to see another person's signature: That other person must have a signature and be displaying it, but also... Your Account Settings > Signatures must be set to show other people's signatures. If someone has a signature, but you cannot see it on desktop, you may not be showing them. Go to Account Settings, then Signatures and click on this slider to show other people's signatures

Beechcraft Starship

@Nertea I am finding that a couple of the engines have some non-trivial thrust torque. I wonder if maybe you had some time to take a look. MU-4U "Vulture" is showing 1,000 KN of vacuum thrust but 718 Nm of thrust torque. MU-11 "Harrier" is showing 296 KN of vacuum thrust but 68 Nm of thrust torque. MR-8 "Allosaur" is showing 1,850 KN of vacuum thrust and 8 Nm of thrust torque. May not be worth fixing but figured I would mention it anyway. All of the remaining engines are between 0 - 2 Nm.

@alien_wind I actually do not know because I have not been using drills with multiple separators since that time. The drills in the current release can way outperform any of my MPUs, so I am using the small automated drill with a single separator. Incidentally, the Governor slider on the drills and MPUs does not appear to be working. I like to be able to balance the drill's output with what the MPU is capable of processing.

Congratulations!

Seems to me backing a vehicle down a ramp at 2.4 m/s is rather fast. That's equivalent to 5.37 mph. A more appropriate speed for backing down a ramp I would think might be about 1 foot per second which is around 0.3 m/s. Try it at a speed under 1 m/s and see if it still happens. Have you checked to make sure they aren't already broken before you start backing out? Perhaps breaking during vehicle load or unpacking.

@Snark Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, since he's biome hopping, and therefore already on Duna, he is using what would otherwise be the fuel he needs to get back to orbit. He doesn't really have a choice but to mine on Duna. Plus it allows him to extend his biome hopping indefinitely until ready to leave. However, he could definitely stop by Ike on the way back to top off his tanks. Being on Ike at that point will also make the return to Kerbin cost less since he's already in a higher orbit with nearly full tanks once leaving Ike's SOI.

You could also consider producing fuel in-situ (on site) if you plan to do much biome hopping. It would require a small drill, small ore tank, and the mini-isru.

This is actually a fairly well known technique. There is a resonant orbit calculator for the stock solar system and various other planet packs such as OPM, GPP, and Real Solar System. https://meyerweb.com/eric/ksp/resonant-orbits/

@katateochi Very nice mod. Well done. I think the main thing I would like to see is your UI replace the one for the launchpad and runway. Currently I'm going to the VAB to launch all my craft because I prefer your UI. Very handy for my Mars mission as I have so many crafts, lifters, transfer stages, et. AL., and your mod makes it so much easier to keep it all organized. One minor problem though, it seems your Settings.cfg is invalidating the Module Manager Cache. I believe the usual way to fix this would be to put it in a PluginData folder so that Module Manager will ignore it. [LOG 11:00:24.215] [ModuleManager] Checking Cache [LOG 11:00:24.707] [ModuleManager] SHA generated in 0.484s [LOG 11:00:24.707] [ModuleManager] SHA = 16-14-C5-D7-F4-8A-24-F4-11-2C-A5-83-00-E0-4E-FA-F6-D5-95-16-38-0C-DF-9A-26-38-88-80-12-C3-0D-EF [LOG 11:00:24.892] [ModuleManager] Changes : Changed : CraftManager/settings.cfg [LOG 11:00:24.892] [ModuleManager] Cache SHA = 37-87-13-4F-7C-72-04-96-F8-94-16-81-70-64-F3-8A-69-67-42-0C-6E-1F-40-ED-47-B0-89-C4-AC-17-61-D3 [LOG 11:00:24.892] [ModuleManager] useCache = False Keep up the good work!

@allista One thing I have noticed is that Kit Res doesn't just appear conspicuously the same as the tonnage, but also that the kits required to build it always seems less than Kit Res suggests. There have even been times that Kit Res was more material kits than I had on-hand, and I was still able to finish building it with kits left over. Could it be that it is showing the amount of material kits already packed inside the box rather than the amount needed to build it? That would explain it being so close to the tonnage and also why the kits required to build it are less than stated.

@Tyko I believe you can survive 15 days without Supplies so actually you have 21 days left. You can easily get to the Mun in about a day though.