AVaughan

Would it make sense to raise lower solar radiation flux a little, and to compensate add methane/CO2 to Kerbin's atmosphere to give it a greenhouse effect? Or would that be too small an effect?

Well since the base game will supposedly ship with multiple star systems, they could add a stock (or quarter/semi-stock) version of rss to the base game. That won't satisfy RO/RSS players, but as long as it is easily rescaled (and easy to on move the starting space center), that would do. But as I said earlier, as long as it is easy to add/change solar systems (including changing the starting planet) then I think that is good enough. The modders can take it from there.

@ResonantWaves Care to describe what the actual issue is with SXTcontinued? I built a new 1.7.3 install 2 weeks ago. The only issue I had was with installing the wrong version of proc parts (because I didn't pay enough attention to the guide). Since then I've seen people complaining that they can't get RO/RP-1 to install, so today I built another new install. That installed without issue and loads fine. (I only went as far as installing the required mod, I didn't bother with the optional mods, since I'm not planning to actually play this install).

@Galile-Ho Sounds like https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/New-FAQs#the-attachment-nodes-on-my-procedural-parts-are-offset-how-do-i-fix-them .

Follow the guide. (And I mean really follow it). https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.7.3

As a representative of your employer, your boss is typically entitled to give you instructions, and to request status updates about your job related activities. (But if he asks too often then you could try suggesting that you would make faster progress if he stops pestering you). Asking a modder for progress updates is better compared to having a neighbour who voluntarily mows your lawn for free whenever he mows his lawns, and asking him "how long before you mow the lawns?". Now an very occasional and gentle request for an update about mods that might have been forgotten, (or in cases where you aren't sure whether the mod author is even aware that an update is needed) is fine. But when people keep asking the same thing, that is just another case of pestering.

There was an update to the RO ckan metadata in the last couple of days. I think that that added the RO version of smokescreen to the dependencies. That version is currently marked as only compatible with 1.7.3.

You do realise that the OP hasn't logged into the forums in over a year? @linuxgurugamer Are you interested in picking this up?

Somewhere on the wiki they mentioned that Radiation can also damage an engine, and increase the chances of it failing before the end of it's rated life. After a couple of Munar missions that crashed because the lander engine failed during the landing burn, I've come to the conclusion that engines that are mission critical and will be used beyond low kerbin orbit should be high quality. (Somewhere on the wiki I think they also said that apart from ignition failures, engines are unlikely to fail before about 35(?)% of their rated burn time. So for engines that are mission critical and beyond LKO, I'm using high quality engines and planning to only use them for about 30% of their rated burn time.

Personally I like procedural parts. If they aren't in the stock game, then I hope a mod adds them.

@JMirabelle I recommend following the install instructions from github. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.6.1

Just upload them somewhere (eg imgur.com) and post a link.

That is a procedural tank. I think the definition of tank 3 is part of RP-1 (which I also have installed). However you don't need a tank 3, the important part is that you have selected the correct fuel, and that requires a working Realfuels mod. (Indeed don't install RP-1 until you have a working RO install. Adding more mods will just make diagnosing the problem harder). I'm still requesting those screenshots, so I can have some idea of what is working and what isn't working and hence what might be the actual cause of your engine not working.

Personally, I wouldn't tell Steam to uninstall KSP. I would just open the steamapps/common directory and drag the Kerbal Space program folder somewhere else. That means that I still have that install and it's saves available to play if I decide to continue it later, and makes sure that I will get a nice clean install of whatever version I set in the Steam Betas tab.

The RL-10b-2 works for me (on my old and out of date install, that hasn't been updated recently).

The PAWs are built into KSP. They don't need to be installed. They are the little windows that open when you right click a part. Please provide screenshots of your vessel on the launchpad with the engine, fuel tank and command module PAWs open.

You haven't provided enough information for us to do anything more than guess at the cause of your problem. So some possible guesses. Wrong fuel for the engine. Pressurise fed engine without a highly pressurised tank. No control possible because you have no comms, or lack a suitable command module. Improperly installed mods, or mods that aren't compatible with your ksp version, or mods that aren't compatible with your RO install. If you still need help please provide a screenshot of your gamedata folder, plus a screenshot of your vessel on the runway/launchpad with the engine, tank and command module Part Action Windows visible.

Or use Kerbalism, which also allows activating things when certain conditions occur. (There is also KOS, but that is probably overkill).

I wonder if he has thought through all the requirements of that (including the orbital mechanics bits)? Eg if you launch into a minimum inclination orbit from anywhere except the equator or the poles, it will be roughly 24 hours before the Earth rotates so that your launch site is back under your orbit so that starship can land back its launch site. If you use a higher inclination orbit, then maybe you can setup your orbit so that you can launch from Florida and land back in Florida one orbit later. Of course you could probably do a launch from Florida, land somewhere (perhaps Boca Chica?), refuel and then do a suborbital hop back to Florida. Or just have enough different launch sites spaced around Earth such that you can launch and then land one orbit or so later. Of course if they are going to send 300 flights per day to all rendezvous with the same target, then they either need to use a lot of launch sites, (or an equatorial orbit with an equatorial launch site, or a polar orbit with a north or south pole launch site), or they need to do simultaneous launches of 9-10 starships plus 9-10 landings of starship, every time the target orbit passes over the launch site. (Or almost 20 simultaneously if launching into a minimum inclination orbit for the launch site).

Yeah. That pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. Built in support for mods that add/changing solar systems (including setting which planet you start on) would be more valuable than adding RSS.

I stopped trying to build such designs back around KSP 1.3. As you mentioned, even the slightest deviation from retrograde will cause the science junior to overheat, and that design isn't aerodynamically stable, so it is likely to deviate at least slightly. From the screenshot that you posted it looks like most of your control surfaces are close to the center of mass (and the center of lift). Either add a tail or some canards all the way forward. Control surfaces are more effective if they have more leverage.

I generally expect a design to make orbit on the first attempt. If it doesn't then normally that means something is wrong with the design. But I always set the turn parameters myself, and don't let gravity turn attempt to optimise.

Personally I consider that a classic an example of what happens if any of the legs contract past their maximum allowable travel, and the physics engine then decides to fix that by moving the leg back to its maximum allowed travel, and in doing so applies a large force to the rest of the rocket. Far too often KSP/Unity doesn't seems to get the stiffness of the springs and the damping of the shock absorbers right. Look at the video frame by frame. The landing leg seems to offer almost no resistance to compression until it is almost at the very end of its allowed travel. That is a massive problem since letting the landing leg exceed its maximum allowed travel will result in the physics engine over-correcting and potentially destroying the lander. Let's look at it frame by frame. Touch-down appears to be at about 35.27 seconds with the lander descending at 0.5 m/s. At 36.02 seconds the lander is still descending at 0.5 m/s. At 36.03 seconds the lander is now descending at 0.4 m/s. At 37.52 seconds the landing leg is almost completely compressed, yet the lander is still descending at 0.4 m/s. (One potential work-around for the player is to use the engine to kill the vertical descent immediately after touchdown, so hopefully the landing leg never gets this compressed. Tapping F to temporarily disable SAS, so that the craft can rotate, then turn it back on when the craft is parallel to the surface, might also help as then all 4 landing legs should be in contact, and hopefully all 4 can slow the descent before one bottoms out). At 37.53 seconds the lander is now descending at 0.3 m/s. At 38.05 seconds the lander is still descending at 0.3 m/s. At 38.07 seconds the lander is now descending at 0.2 m/s. At 38.13 seconds still descending at 0.2 m/s, but the landing leg looks like it is about to bottom out. One frame later (38.15) the lander actually rotates downslope, as though the leg has bottomed out. Descent rate now 0.1 m/s. Next frame (38.17) nothing appears to happen. (I'm guessing a video frame without a physics tick). 38.18 further rotation downslope, descent rate now 0 m/s. SAS reports that is is unable to control the rotation. Landing leg is starting to extend. 38.20 looks like another frame without a physics tick. 38.22 massive rotation, and the lander is now ascending at 9.8 m/s. (Note that to achieve that change in velocity over 2 frames (0.04 seconds), requires acceleration of 25 gees). Lander leg is now almost fully extended. So roughly 3 seconds to compress on the way down, and 0.04 seconds to extend on the way up. Massive overreaction from the physic engine, presumably because the landing leg exceeded it's allowable travel. Personally I think KSP needs to set landing legs stiffer by default to prevent them bottoming out, and then set the extension damper high enough that the legs don't extend fast enough to cause the craft to bounce when players do land a little hard. (Isn't that the point of damping in a suspension system?) Also for landing on really low gravity moons, the player really need to control their descent rate better. Contact at 0.5m/s and then using a tiny blip of the engine to kill the descent rate (and possible tapping F to toggle off SAS for a few seconds to allow the craft to rotate to match the slope) might have resulted in a successful landing. (Otherwise just ignore the landing legs and land on the engine bells).

Personally I think that for any mission beyond about 4 years mission duration (eg Jupiter/Saturn) the vehicle should probably be considered expended, even if the mission requires returning the vehicle (or at least part of the vehicle, eg sample/crew return) to Earth. Why? Because at the rate SpaceX iterates, after 4+ years the vehicle will probably be considered obsolescent anyway, and there is a reasonable chance SpaceX would decide to scrap it rather than modernise/refurbish it. (Would it even be practical to modernise/refurbish a space only vehicle in space? Given the difficulty of even doing a thorough inspection, my guess is they would just scrap it). The default Starship design should be able to handle pretty much all our needs in Earth/Lunar space for the next few years, so no need to develop a custom "space only" vehicle derived from a full size Starship for those use cases (at least for the next few years). For Mars, you want the TPS + flaps/wings/plasma deflectors anyway. For Jupiter/Saturn or beyond, if the mission is one way, then just build an expendable third stage (possible based on either a Vac Raptor or an RL-10). If it is sample return mission, then a return capsule is probably a simpler and safer choice than using a custom Starship that can only aerobrake into Earth orbit. (Remember that the custom Starship won't see a lot of use, so it will have only limited testing compared to a regular Starship, so if you really need that much payload capacity for the return, just go with the regular and better tested Starship design). So if the only remaining use case I can see is a one way mission somewhere that requires a payload big enough to justify expending a Starship. If they want to do a customised expendable version of Starship without any TPS/wings/flaps/plasma defectors or landing legs, then that might make a small amount of sense. (Replacing the SL raptors with a Vac Raptor might also make sense, but the savings might not be worth the cost of validating the new design). But for the foreseeable future, I can't see a use case for a space only Starship that is intended to aerobrake into Earth orbit, and remain in space. (Most likely scenario I can think of where it make sense is if we actually build a colony on the Moon. Then there might be enough cargo to the Moon to justify a specialised version of Starship that shuttles between LEO and Lunar orbit).

Can a single Vac Raptor throttle low enough for that landing? (I'm too short on time atm to do the math. I'm only have enough time to skim through a weeks worth of posts in this thread). They could do a hoverslam, (zero all velocity 0.5 m above the surface, cut the engine and just drop), but a controlled hover and landing is probably preferable. They might also be able to build a smaller Raptor, but that would take up valuable design and testing time. Alternatively would a cluster of hot gas (methane/oxygen) rcs engines have enough thrust for the actual touch down?