AVaughan

Solar panels degrade over time, and output less energy over time.

Most of the time I don't care if my sounding rockets burn up on re-entry. Most of them don't even have chutes. If you have an experiment that you need to recover, then make the bit that you recover as light and draggy as practical, and don't launch too high.

Wish list feature request. When using the porkchop plotter to get a better approximation for an interplanetary transfer in RO/RP-1 than TWP, I would prefer if the porkchop plot reported both the departure dV and the arrival dV. (Currently it reports the total dV, which is less useful than the 2 separate values, since for me departure and arrival are almost always separate stages). I would also like to see the inclination and RAAN/LAN of the 'nominal' departure orbit (not sure whether that is known at this stage)? Thanks for your work on this.

Swirling wind gusts shouldn't be a problem until very late, ie when the booster is approaching the tower. If they don't have enough control authority at that time, then there is chance of clipping the tower or catch arms. That doesn't require an actual failure from the booster, just not enough margin built in at design time. (And if an engine did fail at that time, well that would reduce their margins even further).

The "most of the time" is part of what worries me. Even an occasional failure could mean extensive repair and downtime to the launch tower/catch arms. I hope they have enough control authority to handle gusting wind swirling around that launch tower while the booster is in a very constrained descent between the catch arms.

Congratulations @The Aziz. @adsii1970 Maybe pin that thread?

If you want to build a large manufacturing facility, then one of your major expenses is probably buying or leasing land. Acquiring large areas of land will almost certainly be significantly cheaper in a poor neighbourhood than a rich neighbourhood. It also requires time. Factor in the fact that controversial subject matter probably attracts more page views (and hence ad revenue) and there just isn't an incentive for most online media to bother fact checking most articles. More profitable for the reporter to spend the same time writing another article instead.

What KSP version? Did you follow the install guide? (https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/Installation) My RO + RP-1 install works for me. It does take a while to load, and sometimes the progress bar seems to stop. If you are low on RAM, and paging to disk, then that will really slow down progress and could easily make you think it has stopped.

@User98-367 I stopped using autostrut grandparent a couple of years ago. I found that autostrut heaviest, or autostrut root generally works better for me.

You probably also need to ensure that they are horizontal rather than rotated, otherwise you risk damaging the rotation mechanism.

I've never seen that. RO is a large and complex set of mods. My guess is that either that something is missing/incorrectly installed, or you installed a version of something that is incompatible with either your version of KSP or with some other mod(s). So some basic questions? What version of KSP? What operating system are you installing on? Which version of RO? How did you install it? CKAN (highly recommended) or manual installation? Did you follow the install guide? (https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.10.1 for RO + RP-1, or https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Advanced-Install-for-1.10.1 for just RO).

Toggling on the infinite electricity cheat should disable the avionics limits. (It is possible you need some sort of avionics, but a science core is enough, and they are pretty light).

I'm not an expert, but it could be the difference between using the beam as a lifting beam compared to using it as a spreader beam. See https://www.mazzellacompanies.com/learning-center/spreader-beams-vs-lifting-beams-definitions-differences-and-design/

Yes I did. You said that for KSP 1.10.1 people should stick to 3.4.3 (which is also the most recent version that ckan thinks is compatible with 1.10.1). I'm saying that 3.4.3 doesn't work (at least on my RP-1 install), and that I needed to downgrade to 3.4.2 . That was also the same version that Allekatrase reported worked for him.

I came over here to report a similar issue to @Allekatrase , namely that Editor Extensions 3.4.3 wasn't working with my RP-1 install on KSP 1.10.1. Following his advice I downgraded to 3.4.2. From a quick test that version seems to work.

Why bother with a special tug variant. You can achieve the same result by just using a fully fuelled LSS and tanker in low earth orbit. Have both burn about 2.5 km/s into an elliptical orbit, rendezvous and refuel LSS. But if you are serious about wanting to return LSS to LEO, then you might as well take the cargo mass penalty and add flaps + heatshield and recover LSS to earth. That gives the ability to do a through service, including repair/replace/upgrade things that are difficult and/or impractical in space, and removes issues of transferring/loading heavy cargo(s) in space. If they want to work on a tug variant, then I would rather see a variant with one or two Vac raptor and 6+ of the LSS landing engines that is designed to Dock to a cargo module in space. (From the tugs point of view even a crew habitation module is a cargo module). Dock to a cargo module that is inside a Starship's cargo bay, or attached to Lunar Gateway. After the mission, be able to redock the cargo module to Starship/Lunar gateway. Dock to the inside of the Starship's cargo bay, and hence be not only launched by Starship, but be capable of being returned to Earth's surface for inspection/maintenance, if required. Able to be refuelled by Starship. Have Falcon 9 style retractable landing legs. (Large legs, for a nice wide stable stance). Have enough dV to land on the Moon from Lunar gateway, then return to Lunar gateway, carrying a cargo module. That would give them a purpose designed, reusable and flexible lunar landing architecture. Crew modules and cargo modules, with the possibility of custom modules for special purpose needs. Cargo modules might be able to reach 60+ tons. No need to carry unnecessary atmospheric engines to/from the lunar surface, no need for an aerodynamic shape. No problems with transferring heavy cargo between Starship and LSS in space.

Maybe hold-down clamps?

Around 3-4 months ago there was a similar repeatable KSP crash or freeze reported on the RO discord during someone's Moon landing. From memory that was traced to KER's landing prediction. Disabling that allowed the de-orbit and landing burns to proceed. Edit: Found the conversation. It wasn't the Moon, it was Vesta. https://discord.com/channels/319857228905447436/331813459417235457/822357256292794388

Why mention megaton? Starship would enable 100+ tons of conventional explosives. (Or cluster bombing using 100 tons of conventional bombs). Even a tanker version of Starship is potentially 100+ tons of fuel air bomb. (Although it probably wouldn't get good dispersion for an effective fuel air explosion).

From memory of the news reports I saw months ago, the story with the 737 crashes from the last few years was that Boeing told the FAA that they had taken certain precautions to ensure that single angle of attack sensors wouldn't cause problems even if the sensors failed, and the FAA took Boeing at its word. However during the investigation into those crashes FAA discovered that Boeing hadn't taken done that. Hence the fuss about the FAA under-regulating the industry. (Note that is from memory of news reports, so I've probably got some details wrong, but hopefully the gist is right). Now with SpaceX and Starship, I'm guessing/hoping that they are checking that SpaceX has appropriately calculated the blast effects and taken appropriate precautions in case the Starship explodes on the pad or 5 seconds after liftoff, or if one or more flaps seizes up during decent, and SpaceX loses control.

@Koram94 Are scrubbers and fuel cells actually researched and bought in R & D? You might get a better/faster response in the kerbalism channel of the RO discord https://discord.gg/hbPcKDbUgm .

@Koram94 Which configs do you have installed? For RO you should have the ROKerbalism configs installed. (Also note the latest version of Kerbalism version now depends on HarmonyKSP https://github.com/KSPModdingLibs/HarmonyKSP ).

Well the fix for those experiencing what looks like the same issue on 1.8.1 was rolling back to an earlier version (it was described as an august version, so I'm guessing one of the 0.06xx versions, but that was for 1.8.1. No idea what version you need for 1.11.1. (RO/RP-1 are only officially supported on 1.8.1 atm. You might get better/faster support on the RO discord https://discord.gg/BCTBzyJqP3 ).

Are you clicking "Fill" or "Add"? "Fill" will automatically select the first kerbal, whilst "Add" will let you select the kerbal.

Those images look similar to what people using 1.8.1 report when they have the wrong version of scatterer. For 1.8.1 I think someone said it should be the august release of scatterer. No idea what the right version would be for 1.11.1. (I don't use scatterer).