Skystorm

@Raptor9, @klesh, @RoverDude It seems that somehow we lost the rescaleFactor = 1 line in the fairingSize4.cfg and that has resulted in the issue. You can use the following Module Manager patch to correct it.

@PTNLemay The service module would not have been affected by lunar dust as it remained in orbit the whole time. However, they may have been concerned about how the cold temperatures in space would affect it as it had to be able to perform multiple burns over the course of the 9 day mission.

@RoverDude I noticed on CKAN that the Malemute Rover is listed with a max KSP version of 1.4.9 but one of its dependencies, Firespitter Core 7.6.0 only has a max KSP version of 1.3.9. Is that a mistake or are you still working on Firespitter?

@Cheif Operations Director In the VAB/SPH in the upper right, the green Launch button has a small grey panel under it. Mouse over that and it will let you select the launch site. Click the arrow on the right to launch from that site.

Other than the cost associated with the DLC, how is that different from a craft using modded parts for someone who either doesn't or cannot install the required mod(s)? I think you are always going to have people in that situation. I do, however, think that the parts like the engine plates and such that aren't really specific to Making History should have been part of the 1.4 update along with the new structural panels. I could have swore someone said that they were going to be at one point.

@darkfrei

@AndyMt It appears that CKAN is reporting 1.7.7 is compatible with KSP version 1.3 instead of 1.4.

Actually, it is possible to circumnavigate Kerbin even with a Wheesley jet engine. I did it flying at mach 0.9 @ 6km in just under 4 hours to complete the Kerbin Circumnavigation challenge. If I recall correctly, the Wheesley only has an Isp of 10,500s. Check out the Kerbin Circumnavigation challenge thread.

KSP 1.4.1 Build 2089 / Making History Expansion The 5m fairing is incorrectly using the 3.75m autotruss scaling and node positions. The following patch will correct the scaling and node positions so that the truss is the correct size and the node positions correctly match. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/18071

Incidentally, I posted a bug with the relevant configuration data to the tracker. It would be handy if someone confirmed the bug. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/18071 I have added the patch to the community thread.

I wasn't aware that there were any community configs. Where do I find those?

@Xyphos If you use Module Manager, I whipped up a little patch that should fix the truss and node positions for you. I usually create a personal folder under the Gamedata folder for my personal patches. You need to paste this text into a file with a .cfg extension and save it under Gamedata somewhere. Something like /Gamedata/MyStuff/patch.cfg Should get you by until they fix it.

@linuxgurugamer I'm not sure if you manage your CKAN data yourself, but I thought I would mention that the forum/homepage link is still pointing to the old thread.

I had a bit of a problem with docking the Telescoping Clamp-O-Tron with the Shielded Clamp-O-Tron. With Connected Living Space installed I could not open either hatch just after docking: there was no PAW option to do so on either port. A scene change to the Space Center and back seemed to resolve the issue. Is this anything to do with the Telescoping Clamp-O-Tron, the two different types of ports being docked, or with Connected Living Space? Has anyone else experienced this issue as well? KSP 1.3.1 Build 1891

@melomandasaqui So you don't see the following in your list of KSP Betas on Steam? What version are you trying to go back to?

@Nertea Amazing work on the new parts. I think they look even better than the originals. I particularly like the new hatches. While playing around with the new parts I noticed a minor issue with the new crew tubes. The end caps on the PTD-1 and PTD-2 crew tubes aren't quite flush with the tube bodies, and you can see through the part at both ends. I thought I'd mention it in case you weren't aware of it.

@tseitsei89 I created the following module manager config to tag engines so that I could filter by fuel type in the editors. It doesn't cover all the fuel types but just the main ones I tend to use. There are two entries for each fuel type: one for engines with engine configs and one for engines without them. You can then filter engines by typing something like, for example, "engine methane" into the filter box to find all engines that do, or are capable of using, methane. You can add support for more fuel types by adding more entries and setting the PROPELLANT type and @tags to the fuel type you want to make searchable.

@Geonovast I believe F5 saves your game using a fixed filename, IIRC, but I don't recall what it was. I haven't used just F5 in quite a long time. In contrast, Alt+F5 creates numbered saves by default but pops up a window that allows you to change file name if you want. So if you didn't change the default names it would create files like: Quicksave.sfs Quicksave #2.sfs Quicksave #3.sfs Additionally, Alt+F9 allows you to choose which saved game file you want to load.

Have you altered any of the settings in Trajectories? Certain things like disabling the Cache option can seriously ramp up CPU usage. Perhaps try removing the entire Trajectories folder and reinstalling it to reset all of its settings.

@Julien_kerman If by that you mean you have nothing but a black screen visible, I had the same problem when I forgot to install the textures. Did you install one of the three (3) available Real Solar System Texture packs? (2048x1024, 4096x2048, or 8192x4096) If not then head back to the first post of this thread and scroll down to TEXTURE INSTALLATION where you will see the texture repository link. If I recall correctly, your GameData folder should have a folder in it called "RSS-Textures" if you have them installed.

@Nik75 You seem to have cut some corners there. You are missing your required solar panel, and I doubt that pod would survive a direct return from Minmus on normal mode without a heat shield. Also, your remaining delta V in orbit sounds a few hundred m/s too low to reach Minmus, pull into orbit, land, take back off, and perform a direct return to Kerbin. Have you actually performed the mission on normal mode using this craft? I'd be interested in seeing some albums from others that have done it.

Anyone seen @boolybooly recently? It's been about 3 weeks now.

@Nik75 I originally started the design with all liquid fuels. The limits are so restrictive that I was running into problems with part count, mass, or the ability to reach orbit with every design. I eventually came to the conclusion that the ion was capable, and probably the only, engine that could really power the upper stage and keep it light enough that the lower stage could get it into orbit. Powering The Ion Engine The ion needs about 55% - 60% thrust to have the TWR necessary to land or lift off from Minmus under power. This created a bit of a conundrum because it requires around 6 EC/s or better to reach that thrust and there is only a limited selection of solar panels to choose from. To keep the solar panel count down and always have full sun to power the ion they needed to be sun tracking panels which generate at least a 6 EC/s combined. Ideally I would want closer to 10 EC/s combined for full power and to have some breathing room. I would want a pair of solar panels to keep the ship balanced and the part count low. OX-4L, SP-L 1x6 Very lightweight but only 1.6 EC/s each. A pair of these would only be enough to run the ion at 33%. OX-4W, SP-W 3x2 Very lightweight but only 1.6 EC/s each. A pair of these would only be enough to run the ion at 33%. OX-STAT Very lightweight but only 0.3 EC/s each. Not a sun tracking solar panel. OX-STAT-XL Very lightweight. Improved at 2.8 EC/s but still not enough with a pair of them. Also not a sun tracking panel. PN-NUK Not a solar panel, but I considered it anyway. Only 0.8 EC/s. Doesn't need to be sun tracking, but it is rather expensive. Fuel Cell Also not a solar panel. Only 1.5 EC/s. Same problem as the solar panels though; I would need too many of them. Fuel Cell Array Again, not a solar panel but 18 EC/s. Plenty of electric charge but 240 kg each and I would need two to balance the ship. Also doesn't meet the challenge requirements. They would work though and actually weight slightly less than the Gigantors but are very bulky which could be a problem. That leaves me with the Gigantor XL Solar Array with 48 EC/s combined change rate with sun tracking capability and weighing in at 300 kg each. A bit heavy for such a small rocket but there really wasn't much of a choice to stay within the part limits. Also rather large compared to the rest of the upper stage. I had to slide them upwards to so that they wouldn't hit the ground when landed. Because of the concern that the solar panels might strike the ground when landing, I added a Z-1K Rechargeable Battery so that the panels could be retracted about 10 seconds before landing in case something went awry. The panels were also retracted for the first 10 - 15 seconds during lift off to avoid damage from ground strikes. Shame I couldn't use Near Future Solar's 5 EC/s or 7 EC/s panels because those would probably have been perfect for this. Alternative Engines There are a couple different possible engines I considered for the upper stage. The upper stage needed to be as light and efficient as possible not only for the deltaV needed but also because it heavily affects the lower stage's ability to get it into orbit. I ruled out radial engines because of part count and low efficiency. I ended up with two possible candidates: 48-7S "Spark" Liquid Fuel Engine This engine would normally be great for a small upper stage with a specific impulse of 320s, 20 kN of thrust, and weighing in at 100 kg. This would need a much larger fuel tank to achieve the minimum delta V requirements for the mission. Even with a FL-T400 tank the engine would fall about 500 m/s short of the 2,700+ m/s required. Additionally it raised the overall weight of the rocket and upper stage by almost 1.5 tons! The lower stage is already struggling to put the ion into orbit and the extra weight would likely kill it. LV-909 "Terrier" Liquid Fuel Engine I love this little engine but it is hard to afford 0.5 ton with only an 11 ton limit. Very good specific impulse of 345s and even better thrust at 60 kN. However it suffers from the same fuel requirements as the Spark requiring at least an FL-T400 to supply the delta V needed. Unfortunately even with better Isp, the extra engine weight for the tiny upper stage causes it to fall over 600 m/s short of the delta V needed. It would also bring the upper stage to 4.3 tons and the whole rocket to 10.85 tons. It needs more fuel but there simply isn't enough of the weight limit left for it. Other Considerations I also tried all liquid fuel lower stage but they simply weren't efficient enough or couldn't bring enough fuel due to the weight or part limits. I also considered solid rocket boosters but there are so few and are relatively heavy and have low efficiency. Final Thoughts I ended up going with a hybrid rocket / space plane concept to get the efficiency of the air breathing engines at low altitude while still being able to function as a rocket in the upper atmosphere with a single engine. I chose the ion engine for the upper stage for the exceptional delta V and the light weight of the fuels and engine, and because anything heavier would simply have not made it to orbit.

14 parts and weighs in at 9,040 kg (9.04 t). You really have to nail the ascent profile or it won't make orbit. Fortunately the fairings in 1.3 played nice and didn't explode or destroy my solar panels. Still had around 1,900 m/s left on the ion engine. I should have used that to bleed off some energy before re-entry. Came within 2% of exploding the capsule. So yeah. It's possible. Barely.

Circled the planet once taking 3 hours and 50 minutes flying at mach 0.9 (286 m/s) with an altitude of 6km (6,000m).