DStaal

For stability and integrity of ships, it's generally considered best to put it at the COM - it will generate torque at it's location, so it will both be most effective there and will have the least side-effects.

From what I understand: Yes, and this is by design. The intended solution to this is to have multiple antenna on the satellites that need to communicate with multiple networks, each set to a different frequency. For your example, I'd probably have the Highly Eccentric Polar sats each have two antennas - one for the 'long range' network, and one for the 'local' network. (Personally I'd allow the low-Kerbin network to operate on the same frequency as the KSC, keeping that set down to just needing one antenna.)

Yeah, they can get complicated. I mostly wanted to make sure you knew of the forum rules that required it in the first post as well. A decent resource is here: https://choosealicense.com/ Wikipedia also has a few good pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses Basically, MIT is 'do what you want, just make sure you credit me for what I've done'. Anyone can use it for any purpose, including using it in closed-source software. GPL is a bit more complex, in that it adds that if you use the code in something else, that something else has to have the same type of license. So someone can't take your code and put it in closed-source software. (But they also can't open it up by putting in MIT-licensed software.) In general, I don't think most people need to know all the different licenses. If you know enough about the differences between MIT, GPL, and the various Creative Commons licenses to be able to choose between them for yourself, that's usually enough if you aren't a company with their own law firm on retainer.

Gorgeous, and an instant download. BTW: Due to forum rules, I think you'll need to mention the license in your post. (MIT I think? That's what SpaceDock says, though there isn't a license in the download either.)

Even without breaking it down, water makes a decent reaction mass. You want low mass molecules for that for the best ISP, and water is lighter than a lot of atoms, while being easier to work with than the ones that are lighter at 'normal' temperatures because of it's liquid state. Add in that in an emergency you can switch use between life support and propulsion as needed, and the fact that it makes decent radiation shielding as well, and you've got a really useful material.

Most of what you're asking for is actually changes to EL, I think. There are a couple of simplified versions of EL out there. This mod is just parts for EL. Heck, if you just wanted to build everything direct from Ore, all you'd need to do is write a recipe file for EL. (And *all* EL parts would use that recipe, no change needed in the parts.)

From the image: I doubt it. You'll notice he has rockets to provide forward thrust. (You can probably get a bit with a good SAS system: Tilt the rover forward, and get some angle on the fans.) Actually... Will the fans work as RCS? It tends to help make flying these things easier...

Actually yes: I've seen similar behavior, and we discussed it a bit earlier in the thread. The important step in this case is your step 6, where you switch away from the rover to another vehicle within physics range, and then leave physics range in that vehicle, instead of by switching away. That seems to mess BV up. To work around, either launch the lander before setting up BV on the rover, or leave and wait for the rover to rover to move out of the local area before coming back to launch the lander.

That ship looks fine, though your EC generation is marginal. However: I notice from your list of resources you have 'ReservePower' - I can't recall off the top of my head which mod that is (it's not one I use), but I know that's a modded in resource related to EC management. Could it be siphoning off EC when you get to 95% full, in order to fill the reserve batteries?

Well, we aren't going to be able to make any better guesses without seeing at least one representative ship in question. Pics please?

The logistics system would deplete them down to 50%. The USI reactors will fill to 95% capacity as a feature: It means you can run solar and nuke at the same time, and the solar will be preferred when it's available.

I'm good with your suggested changes, personally. As for the MKS version - the integration pack already replaces the config for this entirely, as not only does MKS add efficiency differently, it also has a couple of other greenhouse modes. (With the integration pack, you actually get several greenhouses, each designed to use a different set of resources.)

Yeah, I just double-checked that. Indeed, the greenhouse uses a KPBS-specific module that includes a crew requirement. (So, sorry @Rafael acevedo, I was looking at the wrong thing and thinking behavior carried over. So I was wrong on how it was behaving.) We could switch over to ModuleResourceConverter_USI or ModuleResourceConverter (which are basically identical for this use, I believe). Another option would be to switch some portion of the production to using the ModuleResourceConverter module and have some using the current PlanetaryGreenhouse module - you'd get two toggles, but then you could have extra production if it's manned. (Though again, ModuleResourceConverter can also increase production via Kerbal skills, I believe. If it can't the _USI version can.)

The KPBStoMKS pack is a separate mod, which was involved in the balance discussions. It extends the balance mechanics and dupes some parts into using the mechanics for MKS. Sounds like you don't have it, so no need to further worry on it, except to mention that it does allow for some of what you're talking about, as with it production goes up if you have the right Kerbals in place. But it requires MKS as a dependency as well. My only other real thought on it at this point is that the parts are *already* fully automatic, as a mechanical limitation in KSP. The converters aren't aware of Kerbals, so there's no real way that I can see to limit them to only running in the presence of Kerbals. (Well, you need to have control of the ship, of course - but that can easily be a probe.) If you want to put a Kerbal into the greenhouse that's completely up to you, but with the mods you've listed it wouldn't make a difference whether there was one or not. So there is no penalty - you get the greenhouse, *and* the seats, *and* the habitation.

Are you playing with or without the KPBStoMKS pack? With the pack, the greenhouses will increase in efficiency (like the MKS parts) when there's an appropriate Kerbal with Botany skill in the base. Without, I don't think having a Kerbal will actually affect whether it runs one way or the other. (Though I haven't checked that.) Either way, I think it should be able to run without a Kerbal in the part. (Though again, I would like to double-check.) Your suggestion is a nice idea, but it isn't simple to implement from what I know - Beyond the simple skill-based efficiency boost, I don't actually know of a way to say 'automatically add production per Kerbal' using the modules available to us, which would mean we'd need a custom module (and therefore custom code). Edit: Tested and confirmed: The Kerbals aren't actually necessary to run the greenhouses. So the KPBS greenhouse is actually strictly better than the 25000-I, as it offers habitation and seats as well.

Mine had jump-rockets still attached. Original purpose was for landing it on the Mun, but they come in useful for emergencies like this.

USI mods use either ModuleResourceConverter, or a slightly-extended decedent that inherits from it. (I get the feeling that RoverDude may have written ModuleResourceConverter, actually...) Categories is more likely to be a problem: USI uses it's own categories extensively, though some parts show in the stock categories as well. (Sorry, I haven't actually done much in KSP the last couple of weeks, and haven't even gotten around to taking a look at BARIS to see what might be needed...)

What level of pilot do you have manning the survey station? The higher the level of pilot manning it, the further away they can build.

While the one on the bottom is beautiful, if I were coming in to look at the mod I wouldn't trust it - it's obviously been manipped, and therefore may not be representative of the mod. The original I'd trust quite a bit more, as it looks like a screen shot from the game. (It's also less 'noisy', in that all the details are the parts which we're looking at, instead of the terrain which is just a distraction.)

I'm going to guess it's like MKS's auto-hiding nodes: Essentially, it's a 'fairing' that hides or shows depending on which node is being used. The nodes will all still exist for KIS if you want to attach something outside of the VAB, they just may not be visibly attached to the ship. (Until you attach something to them and reload the scene.)

Depending on your contracts, the first part can pay for the later parts, usually. After all, it's going to new biomes and getting science. (I'll admit I work with a fair number of contract packs and Stratagia at the moment.)

I tend to do trips in three-part missions: First mission I send up a rover, with crew. FUR or Buffalo come pretty early, and have decent habitation. (Especially when I don't fill all the seats.) Next two parts is a reusable lander/ascent vehicle, which can retrieve the crew from the surface and get to orbit, and then a cycler to return to Kerbin. For the Mun, the cycler tends to be a direct-launch vehicle - it just picks the crew up from the lander, dumps some fuel, and then does the full return to Kerbin surface. For Minmus, the cycler tends to be reusable, either meeting a crew-launch vehicle in LKO, or dropping them off at a station in Kerbin orbit. (And of course over time the landers start rendezvousing with stations in Minmus or Munar orbit.) It's a bit more expensive to set up - but the rovers mean I can maximize my science output, and the costs are nearly all setup costs - sending a second crew to Minmus to explore costs about the same as sending them to LKO: They'll have vehicles, experiments, and resources waiting for them at the other end.

Could we get a pic of your GameData folder after you tried to install it?

For planetary, it's hard to beat Planetary Base Systems. MKS and Pathfinder are both worth checking out for both, but come with an overhead of new mechanics and systems that you may or may not be interested in.

MKS does absolutely nothing with experiments - it doesn't have any, and it doesn't change how they behave. So the only behavior would be stock or whatever the mod that the experiment pack comes with does. (Surface Experiment Package for instance takes time to transmit, and is compatible.)