AVaughan

I doubt they would get more customers, since they can always launch in expendable mode and/or use Falcon Heavy if the payload mass is an issue. But 40% more payload mass to GTO might allow them, to co-manifest more payloads, which would save money by reducing costs. (Of course real reuse with cheap refurbishment also reduces costs even more significantly. But a ULA led refurbishment would probably involve a teardown and rebuild, which isn't going to be cheap. And that is before even mentioning the need for a redesigned rocket and all the associated development costs).

If they are concerned by the amount of dust/gravel blasted off the surface during landing, then they might prefer to keep the thrusters as high as practical to allow the exhaust to expand further before it hits the surface. Also since all cargo will be loaded, secured and launched with starship in a vertical orientation, it will make payload design, planning and handling easier if starship also lands vertically.

I'm pretty sure that the screenshot was taken with testflight installed, whereas you said you have TestLite installed. (TestLite is a newer replacement for testflight, and doesn't have the same display). Are you trying to run that engine for more than it's rated burntime? If so by how much, and what settings are you using for testlite?

i haven't looked at KER's code, but the half burn time it should be using is not half the time for the total burn, but the time it will take to do half of the burn's deltaV, ie half of the burn from a dV perspective, rather than a time perspective. So in your example it should be however long it will take to do a 979.56 * 0.5 m/s burn.

@Arco123 Only post a recompile if you actually want to take over maintenance of Kopernicus. Also see https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/181547-181-1-kopernicus-kittopiatech/&do=findComment&comment=3729953 for a summary of how to post a recompile that complies with the forum rules.

@Qwarkk @pt1243 I'm not using TACLS atm, but you do realise that food contains water and both carbon and hydrogen, so in reality (for an astronaut that is alive and both eating and drinking), the equation is really food + water + O2 -> waste water + (atmospheric) water vapour + CO2. So the eat, drink, respire, recycle water cycle producing a net amount of water seems reasonable to me.

Well done. Just think how much some rich collector would have paid for such a flag.

A part could run a self test periodically even when disabled.

I wasn't meaning to suggest actually adding kerbal health to an RP-1 install. Instead I was meaning to suggest you want closer integration between Kerbal Health's training mechanic and KCT, then it might be worth looking at how RP-1 achieves the that.

RP-1 also implements training. (I'm pretty sure it somehow prevents untrained astronauts from boarding capsules. It also has its own UI for displaying training status and can optionally add an alarm to KAC. And of course it is fully integrated with KCT).

My understanding is that Ckan should work on a Mac. (But I don't have one to test with). See https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/Installing-CKAN-on-OSX. I'm not aware of a guide to installing RO/RP-1 manually. But it should just be a matter of manually installing the same mods. The tricky bit will be making sure you get the right versions and don't forget any dependencies.

I can't speak for the RO/RP-1 devs, but they can't really start working on a 1.8.1 release until after there is a Kopernicus release for 1.8.1. (Kopernicus is being worked on, and will hopefully release soon. But every time somebody says they think it is almost ready, somebody seems to find a new bug). So my personal and unofficial opinion is don't expect a 1.8.1 RO release anytime soon, and definitely nothing before Kopernicus releases for 1.8.1.

The recommended way is via ckan. Indeed the recommended way to install RO/RP-1 is to follow the install instructions, which uses ckan to install as much as possible. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.7.3 . (And I mean really follow those instructions. Over 90% of installation support requests on discord are caused by people not following those instructions).

@KnedlikMCPE A number of exceptions in that KSP.log, but I'm not sure which ones actually matter. (Principia in particular is throwing exceptions during load but I've never used it, so I'm not sure how significant those are). Regarding KCT. Are you sure it is properly installed? From the log, there is no KerbalConstructionTime directory in gamedata. The dll wasn't found either. (You are also appear to be missing ClickThroughBlocker and ToolBar controller, which are two of its dependencies).

The possibility that you might have a valid reason to use 1.3.1 was why i said you should probably be using 1.7.3. If you really want to stay on 1.3.1 then you could download 7-zip. https://www.7-zip.org/download.html . That should be able to unpack the .zip. But be aware that if you have other problems, you probably won't get any support from the RO/RP-1 devs beyond them saying use 1.7.3. (I know that one of the RO devs has already said that the only supported version of RO atm is the version for 1.7.3).

@Drew Kerman That looks like the control surfaces over-reacting rather than aerodynamic turbulence. Turning down control authority might help. Personally I never use moving fins on rockets, and just use engine gimbal for pitch control, and if I need roll control on a single engine stage I add either rcs or vernier thrusters (or in stock use a reaction wheel).

@KnedlikMCPE Looks like that file is actually in .7z format. But you should probably be using 1.2.1 on ksp 1.7.3 anyway. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.7.3

That might actually be a bug in the new KCT. I'm pretty sure one of the RO/RP-1 devs pushed such a change into the KCT for RP-1's use pretty recently. (ie launchpads will no longer be upgradable in RP-1, instead you will need to build a new larger pad). I would have expected that to be hidden behind an option or config setting somewhere, but maybe that option/config setting is broken, or simply on by default. Might be worth checking whether that issue occurs with just KCT, and/or discussing in the KCT thread or on the RO/RP-1 discord.

@Ioannes_Dallasinos Just follow the install instructions. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.7.3 From memory, RO itself provides all those configs, so everything should work if you follow the install instructions above.

Then you have a hazard to shipping that SpaceX will need to cleanup.

Personally I'm in and out of the VAB/Mission control/R&D a lot when designing complex missions. So i would suggest to only check for random events once a month or so.

@Horus Are you thinking of procedural fairings https://github.com/KSP-RO/ProceduralFairings-ForEverything ?

@LukaDaBoi @moguy16 You need to use ksp 1.7.3. See https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.7.3

@DeadJohn Just from looking at your screenshot, what seems to be going on is KER is reporting the dV (and TWR) your stage 0 will have if you stage now, whilst the ingame dV display is reporting the dV (and TWR) you have without staging. (Note KER's per stage breakdown. 0dV in stage 1, and 5648 in stage 0). Since KER is assuming that you are going ditch stage 1 now, it is probably using just the stage 0 TWR and mass when calculating the suicide burn as well. Personally I always have the fuel for landing on the landing stage, even if I use the same engine for landing and ascent.

@Nich you should always optimise for fun over everything else. Your time is too valuable for anything else. Launching the same rocket 150 times doesn't sound like my idea of fun. My current game is a Neph quarterly budgets game. NQB reworks a lot of the early game and contracts, and moves funding into quarterly budgets, so I'm not sure what the current standard rp-1 starting contracts look like, but in NQB I haven't seen any infinitely repeatable contracts. I guess I'm probably up to around 60 actual missions. Counting Krash sims for rocket design and testing probably I have probably done around 150 "launches". For me the year was 1960 last time I checked, and I have done lunar impact and (unmanned) lunar orbit contracts. NQB reworks kct upgrades, but I have around 100 kct points in the VAB (and 2 build rates) and over 200 kct points in RnD (I think that is roughly equivalent to around 50 and 100 kct points in a standard RP-1 game). My quarterly income is 350,000. I've just designed (not yet test flown) a new 125 ton launcher that can throw about 500 kg TLI, and around 350-400kg to Mars/Venus (once I get Mars/Venus capable antennas) or put about 3000kg in LEO. KCT says build time for will be around 84 days (Lunar/Mars/Venus version, with the transfer stage, but with 500kg of lead as a mass simulator instead of an actual probe), which with 2 build queues works out to a launch roughly every 45 days once I add a payload. To me getting orbital is much more fun than grinding 100s sounding rockets .