Godot

If incompatibilities with mods as well as bugs tick you off, you shouldn´t update KSP to a new version till maybe 2-3 weeks after the release of the update. This allows you to go to the new version at a time when most mods have been updated to the new version and the biggest bugs (hopefully) have been squished. But I can only repeat others ... also in my game I haven´t found any gamebreaking bugs (only a minor one about calculation of worth for recovered parts) and most important mods already have been updated for 0.24, so I consider any whining about this as baseless

Ouch ... then you have found the ultimate challenge

The latter may be ... I use Version 1.0.5 ... time to switch to 1.0.9 then your words also indicate that your former bug and the bug that KSP recovery still has were/are independant from each other, as the recovery bug in KSP still isn´t fixed ... with other words, your calculation in 1.0.9 at the moment is more correct than the one that KSP uses

Landing on Eve and taking a surface sample / planting a flag isn´t difficult ... you could also transmit the data back home, which probably would fulfill the conract requirements ... returning on the other hand

One question: To calculate the 100% value of your recovered debris, what do you use? A function of KSP which gives you the parts and their value ... or a function that you programmed for yourself? The reason I ask is the following: Currently there is a bug in KSPs debris recovery that gives you too much worth for debris that is recovered without yielding an End Flight-Screen. See here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86638-Recovered-landed-debris-bringing-more-money-than-it-is-worth And now I found the following passage in one of the recovery mails of your mod, that may point to the bug: 2 FL-T800 Fuel Tanks @ 1600 = 3200 The price given in your message is the price for a full fuel tank and not for an empty one ... as the price of the resources (i.e. fuel and oxidizer) is added separately once again, this, of course, gives you too much worth for your debris (i.e. you get money for a full load of fuel + money for every fuel that is left in the tank for every fuel tank) So, if the parts and their values in the message are taken from a KSP function, this explains everything (i.e. the bug that KSP makes) If it isn´t the case ... well, then I found a bug in yoru mod (which may be the same bug as the bug that KSP recovery itelf makes ... just both were programmed independently)

Roughly 1.5 million after 14 missions ... half of the money stems from a single mission in which I had to test a liquid fuel booster in orbit around Kerbin

This on the other hand is something I agree with ... I used more than enough chutes than, from my experience, necessary for a soft landing for spent stages of the kind I used and nevertheless only got to yellow. The really interesting question IMHO is: What weight is used by the mod for the chute calculation the weight of the stage with full tanks ... or the weight of the stage with tanks with the real fuel levels (which, in my case is usual the weight with empty tanks)

Works well for me in the 32 Bit version ... thanks

Actually, a year ago there was a challenge which asked exactly about this (i.e. how high can you get just with Sepratrons ) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/33370-Sepratron-Height-Challenge

Actually already magpies have self awareness (insofar as they can recognize that the being in a mirror is themselves and not another magpie) So yes, I am absolutely sure that Koko is self aware The only fundamental difference between speech using apes (and other animals, including Grey Parrot Alex) and humans seems to be, that apes don´t ask questions. They use tools, they do tasks when being told, they answer questions when being asked .. they also make requests like "I want a banana". But they don´t ask questions themselves like "Where do you go?", "What is this?", "How are you?" and so on Which is defnitely interesting ... i.e. to wonder why this is so

Just as Esme said ... it is rather a PITA to use this for planning and building. With an Excel chart I have all contracts below each other and can decide: 1. Which Contracts go well together 2. How should I do my staging (especially as sometimes you find a common denominator for several stages so putting several test parts into it makes sense) 3. When should I release each stage The upper right corner popup window has been only useful in flight to me, in order to ensure that really all rpeconditions are met ... and has been totally useless for building/stage planning Aside from this my Excel list also helps me decided which contracts can be done in a single mission (without any other contract) and which give so little money, that they absolutely must be combined with other more lucrative missions (you can lose money by doing contracts, if you don´t plan acordingly )

Not exatly ... a separation of reversible mission modes and irreversible ones. With a revert button you can claim a mission to be the real one if it was successful, or revert it and claim that it was just a simulation if it went kaboom. My proposed (but optional) mechanism would separate both: In Simulation mode you cannot successfully complete a mission (as it is only a simulation that will stay wihtout any effect on the "Real KSP World") In Real Mode the "Revert"-Button may be deactivated (well, didn´t state it in the OP, but it would make sense) so you have to live with the results even if it had a bad outcome Addendum: Seems like Northstar beat me to it

You can, in fact, instead also keep all fuel in the booster and manually activate it via right clicking. This way it can do some work and still will remain in the stage system. The only important thing is, to keep it atached to your spaceship (after it burned out) and activate the stage with it when all prerequisites are met. Or use a laptop besides your main compi and write them down in Excel ... for me it is: Altitude min/max, Speed min/max, Reference body, Other Prerequisites ("Orbit", for example) and Funds earned (Science and Reputation aren´t so important for me in order to decide which contracts I do together, therefore I don´t write them down) Also, with regards to reusability: It pays to keep the parts attached to your spaceship until deep into descent ... if you separate them at maybe 10km altitude or less, chances are good that they will stay within 2.5 km (and stay reusable) ... at the moment (due to the fact that the Recovery system is a little bit buggy insofar as it seems to give you much more funds than the parts are worth) it is well possible to recover 80-95% of the costs of the spacecraft if you and your parts land near KSC) (of course you shoudln´t forget to attach enough parachutes to said parts)

Sounds strange to not get a single test-contract ... I am constantly getting swamped by them

IMHO something that makes sense now that missions cost money: Upon clicking on launch in SPH or VAB, or selecting a rocket on the launchpad/runway, you have the option to choose "Simulated mission" or "Real mission". A real mission is like a normal KSP mission ... it costs money, it takes time, your Kerbals might die and you might fulfill contracts with it. A simulated mission is more something of a computer simulation of the spacecraft (with other words, a computer simulation of a simulated spacecraft in a game about spaceflight ). It plays like a normal mission with a few exceptions: For the one, it costs no money, it takes no time, no Kerbals will be harmed but you alsoi don´t accomplish any goals or fulfill any contracts with it ... for the other, you cannot just leave it into Kerbal spaceport and keep it running in the background (like you can with real missions) ... insetad the simulated mission counts as finished as soon as you leave it. While basically the "Revert"-Button fulfills a similar function, these 2 mission modes allow for a better, hardcore playstyle for players ... insofar as they could simulate missions as often as they want, but if they do the real missions, they could decide to accept the result, even if Kerbals got killed during the mission In contrast to this, a playstyle which involves the "Revert"-Buttons as fulfilling the "Simulation"-aspect, it would be just too tempting, if anything goes wrong in a mission, to click on revert and claim that the mission was just a simulation

Yep, this is normal I guess ... in order to prevent milking the mission reputation system. Just imagine it like this: The first Kerbonauts are heroes, as going to space still is a big adventure (and a novum) ... but the more and more missions start (and the more and more space travel becomes routine) the less the public takes notice of astronauts

But how much sense does it make? separated parts that don´t go more far away than 2.5 km during descent can be recovered as well ... so the recovery percentage of the main body of your spaceship wouldn´t tell you the whole story

You could keep older versions of KSP, in order to play old saves

Kerbal Engineer Redux is available in a version that works with 0.24 now

Visiting anomalies definitely would make sense as a contract target

I don´t see a problem with this: 1. As soon as you leave Kerbin (and aim for Mun, Minmus or other planets) it becomes harder and harder to recover parts via staging ... 100% recovery is usually only possible for things on Kerbin / Kerbins orbit. 2. Recovery at the moment is buggy ... the recovery gives too much money and also doesn´t take into account that the recovered parts are evoid of all fuel ... as soon as squad fixes this, recovery should be come much less lucrative than it is now 3. Squad could introduce 2 classes of parts ... those that regularly landed, either on a runway (on wheels) or with landing legs ... and those that had a rough landing (i.e. recovered debris and/or landed command modules) ... with the first category giving more money upon recovery than the second category 4. The proposed mechanism should only work up to a certain altitude (for example 50 km ... in order to account or detsuction of parts via reentry heat (users of deadly reentry know what I mean ) ... everything that geta separated above this altitude automatically gets destroyed when it leaves the 2.5 km radius This way (especially with 3. SSTOs are still a good option)

Sounds like a good idea

Test the hdyraulic manifold between 13 and 16 km at a certain speed Test the normal radial decoupler between 14.6 and 16.6 km at a crtain speed Test the Mk-16 parachute between 13 and 20km at a certain speed Test the Skipper engine splashed down I solved it by having the skipper engine in the main body and 2 pairs of engine nacelles surrounding it, one pair attached via normal radial decouplers, the other pair via hydraulic manifolds ... all of them with enough radial parachutes to guide them safely home and a single Mk 16 parachute on top (for the test) I released them all at 15 km, when I had between 500 and 600 m/s, which was the common denominator for the decoupler tests and the chute test and activated the skipper when I splashed down

LOL yep ... I also had to test landing gear on a suborbital trajectory outside of Kerbins atmosphere

The big question is, if your Kerbonaut than has fuel for his jetpack ... I know that it was planned to let the Kerbonauts use RCS fuel for their jetpacks (which surely also is the reason for its inclusion within command modules) ... the big question is, if they finally implemented it in 0.24 (former versions AFAIK didn´t have it implemented ... but it was always on their ToDo list)