DStaal

I haven't used Automated Science Sampler, but I got the impression that it ran the experiments for you - possibly only under certain conditions. I use Science [x] (or Experiment Tracker) as an easy way to see which experiments haven't been collected in the current location, and to run them - that is, they give you another way to run them yourself, they don't do it for you.

You're leaving out an important variable: The size (and composition, if it matters - if it's all scouts and pilots it does...) of your crew.

Just wanted to say I'm not sure you need the qualifier: I've used the MechJeb alignment quite a bit, and it's spot-on alignment.

Depending on which mods you use, and your preferences, either/both of these may be of interest: Neither works for everything. The first lightweight opt-in on the part of the mod developer, and will alert you if one of the covered mods is out of date. The second is heavyweight semi-opt-in on the mod developer and does mod install and updating for you. (From what I've seen around here: It works well 95+% of the time. It's not always obvious when it doesn't work, and you should know how to install mods yourself for those occasions.) Another good resource is SpaceDock: https://spacedock.info/kerbal-space-program It can be told to give you update reminder emails from any mod you download from there. (Which again covers most but not all mods.)

That is quite possible. I internalized 'Workshop: Maintenance, needs MaterialKits'. This may have implications for my current career...

I would suggest that for the cargo runs you can look at this: And for your resupply missions you might consider MateralKits instead of Machinery - maintenance will turn them into machinery as needed, if your bases are manned and you have workshops, and MaterialKits can also be used to expand any DIY-kits you need decide to send them as well. (Or inflate stuff, if that's what you decide.) Automated bases definitely need Machinery dropped in to fill them up - and maintenance will never fill more than the minimum required even on non-automated bases - but for manned bases it might be worth considering. Of course, it's quite possible that if you aren't planning on expanding your base further, then machinery is more mass and space efficient. (I would think that the maintenance conversion should be somewhat lossy, and machinery is denser in the first place.)

There isn't any needed R&R that I know of. Typically, if they get 'stuck' as tourists getting them out in a launched ship should be enough to reset them. If it isn't, you should probably get the savefile to RoverDude.

For push: an ISRU (I think), or a logistics center + pilot or quartermaster. For pull: a logistics center + pilot or quatermaster. Storage needs to be attached.

I actually thought that might be the case - part of the reason I didn't bring this up in the MKS thread directly is that I wanted to double-check with other parts/bases, and hadn't had a chance yet.

Only thing I've seen similar to what you're describing was fairing shifting, and they tend to shift back next time I load. Do you have pics? A log file?

But it's still something that's been known to occur - even with people from civilized societies - under extreme circumstances when no other food was available...

My general impressions on a couple of those: First off, as far as I can tell heatshields are basically assumed to be made of ablator - once it's gone, they're done. Secondly, re-entry profile depends a bit on how you've designed your landing profile, in my opinion. If you're doing a powered landing, by all means come in steep to reduce heating time - and slow down as you need to to keep heat under control. For areobrake landings, I prefer moderately shallow: Shed a good portion of your speed high in the atmosphere, where you won't heat up as much as you do it. You shouldn't really be going more than Mach 4 at the maximum when you hit 30km - and that's probably stretching it: Mach 3 would be safer. But in that case you're intentionally converting speed to heat, so you want manage that. I do believe radiators will work - even though they shouldn't, really. Just keep them out of the airstream, so they aren't trying to radiate their *own* heat. I think that your spaceplane question is basically a ratio of pressure to velocity - higher velocity at higher pressure means more heat. This goes to my rule of thumb of mach 3-4 by 30km - beyond that you're gaining heat to quickly for any management technique to help you. A heatshield will hold for a bit - but you need to be below that speed and dissipating heat by the time you get done. Also be aware that your *density* makes a difference - the denser you are, the more energy you need to dissipate, and if you're using atmospheric braking that means the more heat you'll be exposed to. As for other reentry profiles, there's an interesting mod out there called 'inline balutes' - which work much like high-altitude parachutes. With them you can slow yourself down far enough that you don't need a heatshield - though you'll still need some other way to slow your final descent, as they aren't designed for low altitudes. Anyway, those are just my impressions. I could well be wrong on lots of it.

I noticed it in combination with a structural tube and an Anchor Hub (in a cradle) - when I attached the anchor hub to the lower node of the multi-hub, it clipped into the ground, just a bit: The feet were entirely under, but it was close enough I could place via KIS and there was only a slight jump. Closer inspection had me noticing the Ranger ILM's I had attached to various points around the base also appeared to clip slightly into the ground, very slightly. Yep, and thanks. It doesn't sound like it should be too much work - just slight tweaks to the EC input on some of the hab parts.

Oh, I wouldn't want more than one or maybe two adapters - just saying to be aware that there are multiple heights you could work with on *both* sides. And multiple attach nodes closely placed can be dealt with in KIS - try attaching a structural tube to a Tundra multi-hub for an example. (And something I've done quite a bit of. It's actually fairly easy once you figure out a few tricks.) Biggest help is to name the nodes nicely. I'm not particularly fond of this idea, actually: First off, the look of the KPBS parts is definitely designed to be directly placed on the surface. Secondly, legs/wheels are something that get tweaked fairly regularly in newer versions of KSP, meaning they would be a hassle to keep updated. (Especially since several times the updates have meant the models have needed to be changed.) Also: I think the bottom node of the multi-hub and the Duna heights are *supposed* to match. They don't quite, but they are off by very little - and on Ranger parts there's mostly no noticeable problem.

How so? We were comparing background processing (which presumably would be every frame) and catch-up processing, which is currently when you switch to the ship. Note that catch-up processing simplifies things by doing large batches - basically multiplying the per-second processing by some amount and doing that calculation instead. Background couldn't really do that and be real background processing, as batching things up would negate it's advantages. (Though you could probably get by with doing once a second or something, as semi-background processing, and keep most of them.) Even a moderately-sized USI base coming into range for me can cause catch-up delays in the ~30 second range, if not more, so grouping them up isn't going to be a panecia, it just mitigates some. Obviously not *all* mechanics, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. (If it simulated all the mechanics correctly, there shouldn't be any compatibility issues, I would think.) No - but are you sure that's this mod? I think Pathfinder was looking into something on those lines recently...

Best just to watch the video:

No problem. I do want to warn that it is a bit trickier than it sounds - KPBS has two effective heights (with legs and without) and MKS has... Well, four in my experience: Ranger (Ranger hubs and Duna modules), Tundra 2.5, Tundra 3.5, and the Tundra/Ranger attachment height. (Which is slightly off the heights for the Ranger Anchor Hubs.) So an adapter part will need to handle at least a couple of those combinations. (I wouldn't expect it to have all combos, but it should have at least both KPBS heights, likely to the Ranger or Tundra/Ranger height.)

I would more than welcome such an addition. My general take on the original consensus was 'KAS will do, and none of us have the skills/time'. In the meantime, I've been doing some puttering, as I haven't had huge amounts of time. I'm about three parts away from being ready for balance passes. I've decided to base numbers of bays on numbers of seats for the industrial parts and the Central Hub. (With two seats reserved for management and logistics in the Central Hub.)

If you don't have the thrust to accelerate to the speed limit in a reasonable amount of time, increasing the speed limit doesn't help. Check both. (And sometimes you have the thrust in two axis, but not in a third... I've managed to get MechJeb to successfully dock with *no* fore/aft RCS thrusters, on occasion.)

A Rendering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#/media/File:James_Webb_Space_Telescope_2009_top.jpg It's a next-gen telescope, to do some of the same jobs as the Hubble - but it's designed to work in the IR spectrum.

Honestly, if you want to be *really* helpful for USI stuff: Learn how to work the balance spreadsheet and start supplying patches to other mods that could use support. (Especially USI-LS.) I'm working on KPBS, but I know there are lots of others that could use some tweaking.

A quick note on GitHub PRs: By default you'll fork and make PRs on the 'main' branch of the repository - which is fine for most mods, but RoverDude prefers you to work on the 'Develop' branch. It's not hard to switch, in either the web or whatever tool you're using - but it's good to make sure you get it right to make it easier for RoverDude.

Without MKS, the small ISRU unit should get the option to convert Ore to Fertilizer.

I've rarely had it take more than a few minutes to dock using the autopilot. Make sure you have enough RCS control for your vehicle, and if that's not enough increase the speed limit. (Hard to tell what's going on in your picture - it's to low a resolution to read any of the displays.)

On the requirements issue - my quick thought would be tie it to pilot/control level: If the ship has control for retrograde+1 pilot level, it has control for a suicide burn. (That would be level 2 pilots, or the Octo2 and better.)