Zeiss Ikon

(1.6.1 RO/RP-1) Over the last couple days/most of a year, I built a airplane to try to keep my astronauts, since the rebalancing of RP-1 means makes it very unlikely I'll have orbital flights available for the Big Four before their retirement dates. No screen shots, sorry, but I apparently still don't know how to build airplanes in KSP; though I'm pretty certain I could fly what I built as an R/C model, it crashed before getting up to flying speed, totalling the airframe and killing Jeb -- and when I tried to revert, the game crashed to desktop and ate both the debris and Jeb. I respawned him manually, but had to restart construction of the RJ-1. On the other hand, rockets are relatively easy. Stack the parts, make some simple stability checks, and point the correct end up before igniting. This is SR-2. SR-1 was the WAC Corporal-alike, a pressure-fed hypergolic sustainer boosted by a short-burn, high-thrust solid motor to get up to fin stability speed quickly. SR-2 is based on captured missile technology, a pump-fed, regen-cooled engine burning Ethanol 75% and LOX (the A-4 -- this version of RP-1 doesn't seem to include the RD-100 in the starting parts; performance is all but identical, but the RD-100 has a nice upgrade path). This one easily beat the contract for 125 units of sounding payload to 70 km; in fact, with a biological capsule, thermometer and barometer, and a couple parachutes inside the fairing on top of the sounding payload bay, it made 189 km and successfully recovered the payload. Between transmitted data (temperature and pressure logs, and telemetry) and the recovered bio capsule, this one flight was good for 25 (new RP-1) science. I've now got approximately fourteen years of research ongoing to complete the tech nodes I've unlocked. Upgrades, upgrades, upgrades...

For whatever it's worth, you don't really need a "launch window" to the Mun. It passes directly over KSC every Kerbin day, and once you're in an equatorial orbit around Kerbin, you''ll be in the right position for an efficient transfer every half hour or so (and you can time warp through most of that). For Mun and Minmus, launch and transfer windows are trivial compared to dV requirements and the techniques of landing, docking, and so forth.

I started a new career in my new 1.6.1 RO/RP-1 install. Built a WAC Corporal-alike, took a couple screen shots had a launch ignition failure, and realized Real Antennas didn't work the way I'm used to Remote Tech working, so I scrapped the save and started over with Remote Tech instead. Forgot to take screen shots of SR-1, but everyone who plays RP-1 has built one of these. I was pleased that the B9 (Early) fins didn't come close to burning off, like they always used to do in 1.3.1 with this mod setup. Even more surprising, the entire vessel made it to impact in the sea after a 96 km apoapspis. Just install parachutes...

What Snark was telling you is that it's very unlikely anyone has exactly the same setup -- sometimes, order of installation of your mods makes a difference in how they run (that's why there are instructions for setting up Realism Overhaul and Realistic Progression 1 that specify what to do first, second, and so forth). Further, how stuff runs can sometimes depend on what OS and what updates you're using, what video drivers are installed, and so forth. Sad to say, but software, especially complex software, running on a complex system isn't always simple to debug.

Well, I've been away for a year or so. I'm not sure I have a good explanation; one day i just. Quit. Playing. And then, a few weeks ago, I started again, picking up my 1.3.1 RO/RP-1 game and returning to the sounding rocket era to get my feet wet again, as it were. Today, i spent the whole day fighting with getting 1.6.1 RO/RP-1 installed. I'd gotten the non-CKAN mods installed and started the game, and it'd close with no message and drop me back to the desktop. I finally deleted the whole thing and started over, launching more frequently to check progress, and paying closer attention to the installation instructions. Install all the CKAN mods first, then the ones CKAN doesn't handle. Got to Principia, and found it was throwing an error (but not crashing to desktop); turns out current Principia Fibonacci for 1.7.3 (also correct for 1.6.1) requires a library version that's not available in the version of Ubuntu I run. So, now, I have a choice. I can try to play without the mod that actually makes KSP a simulation (as opposed to a game that wants to be a simulation), or I can spend a couple days I can't really spare installing the next Long Term Support version of Ubuntu and reinstalling all my after-install software. There's not really an "upgrade" since the upgrader wants to start by deleting all my "third party" installed packages -- which is all games and a few useful tools -- and then there's no guarantee the upgrade will be successful; I'll spend an hour or two waiting and then might still have to start from scratch with a clean install. Principia clearly isn't required to play KSP, else n-body gravity would have been built into the game in the first place (apparently, with well-optimized code and a willingness to ignore bodies smaller than a small moon, there's not even a significant performance penalty versus patched conics and bodies on rails). On the other hand, things like LaGrange halo orbits, horseshoe orbits, and sun-synchronous orbits just don't work without Principia. I'm not sure which direction I'll go at this point. On the one hand, I don't want to put a lot of effort into an RP-1 career that I can't carry over past a Principia install (it might work if I don't have anything in orbit when I start, but then again it might not). On the other hand, it'll probably be Thanksgiving (last weekend in November) before I'll have time to do a clean install and (needed, to accommodate larger OS requirements) partition rebuild on my desktop system. And on the gripping hand, I've got a freshly installed copy of Hardland that keeps calling me (now that I've figured out how to avoid motion sickness when playing), despite having to reboot my laptop into (shudder!) Windows to play it.

I've found Principia Fibonacci for 1.7.3, running on Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS, won't start; it gives "unknown error" and talks about the working directory needing to be in the <ksp directory> and needing version 6.0-2 of libraries libc++ and libc++abi. Problem is, both of those libraries are at version 3.7 in Ubuntu 16.04. It appears that even though I'm using a still-supported version of Ubuntu, I'll have to "upgrade" (it's not really an upgrade, it's "install everything clean") in order to be able to use current versions of Principia. is that correct, or does someone know a way to use libc++ and libc++abi 6.0-2 in my version of Ubuntu?

Okay, I found what was happening. If the desktop launcher isn't capable of changing the working directory to the location of the executable (which launchers in MATE apparently aren't -- I learned to set these up in KDE Plasma desktop, which has this ability in launchers) the program won't pick up the altered loading hints, but instead uses the built-in ones.

I've been working on installing KSP 1.6.1 RO/RP-1 today, after slowly working my way back into KSP via playing in my 1.3.1 RO/RP-1 install. I've noticed something odd on the two install run-throughs so far (first one crashed to desktop as soon as I created or reloaded a game -- second one is still in progress). After finishing the RO and RP-1 portions of the install, if I launch the game from the button in CKAN, I get RO oriented loading hints, things like "Using High Pressure tanks for pressure fed engines" -- but if I launch the same install (launcher or game directly) I get the original KSP loading hints, plus one or two added by installed mods, stuff like "Extinguishing Flames". Is there a launcher parameter I need to include to get the (actually useful) RO loading hints when starting the game from a desktop launcher? If it makes a difference (and it might) I'm playing in Ubuntu MATE 16.04.3 LTS, kept up to date, with nVidia graphics drivers current for the ones in the Ubuntu repositories for this OS version.

This is a known issue, going back to at least 1.3.1 as I recall. You need to attach the collected module in some manner to keep it contained during time warp. This is because the game doesn't calculated collision while warping, I think. I'd suggest mounting a KLAW inside the cargo bay of your rescue vessels... I wonder, would you have a craft called "Runway" if you allowed the game to recover Runway for you?

I suppose you could require people in your race challenge to submit a full saved game, which would let you verify that they were (at least at the time the save was copied) playing "Hard" mode, which prevents quick-loads, reverts, and respawns.

By "initial state" I presume you mean something like an ephemeride for a particular starting date, so Principia can calculate the positions of the bodies from there on? Seems to me this could be backed out for the Trappist-1 system by obtaining the exact transit times for each of the planets from the original observation/discovery data -- couldn't it? Same way, more or less, that the ephemeride data for the Solar System was created by observations of the planets. I can see how symlinks could be used with small scripts behind each launcher to copy the correct link, then run the core game. I've actually run my 1.4.* install interchangeably on my laptop and desktop computers by putting the specific save file for the career game in my DropBox, with a link to the Dropbox local folder replacing the original folder in each install -- kind of the same thing run the opposite direction. This clearly wouldn't work for installs that depend on different versions, though -- my RO is in 1.3.1, while my "main" career game (which I haven't even opened since getting RO up and running) is on 1.4.3 (likely to be 1.4.5 soon). I want my stock career to have 1.4.* features (EVA parachutes, for instance) and Making History parts/launch sites, but I can't (yet) run RO on a version newer than 1.3.1.

I'd suggest looking on YouTube for RP-0 tutorial videos -- Nathan Kell has a long series, and though I haven't watched all of them, I'm pretty sure he covers how RealFuels works in RP-0 in one of the early ones (RP-1 is mostly the same, only with a more sensible tech tree, astronaut training, and more facility upgrade steps -- plus built around Kerbal Contruction Time and Test Flight mods). In very short, though, the point of Real Fuels is so, in Realism Overhaul, you can emulate real engines with their real fuels, and get real performance (i.e. the RS-25, aka Space Shuttle Main Engine, has the correct Isp, thrust, and rated burn time, and its upgrades have the correct improvements, and its exhaust flame is almost invisible, as it should be). This also ties into RealPlume to give the right look to, say, alcohol burners vs. kerosene burners vs. hypergolics vs. hydrogen burners. In general, I'd suggest using Realism Overhaul as a complete ensemble, including Real Solar System, RP-0 or RP-1, Kerbal Construction Time, Ferram Aerospace, TAC Life Support, and the supporting cast of parts mods which include RealFuels and RealPlume.

Okay, like the little brother of the Juno I, then -- hydyne/lox, but not as big an engine or as long a burn as the A-7 Redstone config. I use the engines I do because they're got lots and lots of flight time on them. My RD-103 has been launched thirty times or more, went past 10,000 du some time ago, and the AJ10-27 more so. Of the four launches I described above, I had just two engine failures (one performance loss on an RD-103, one failure to ignite an AJ10-27) out of a total of 41 liquid fuel engines in the four vehicles. I've had very bad results clustering RD-103 when they were still new in the program, so this career I didn't do that. Bumper F1 has four RD-103 in the booster, but by now those are very experienced engines. For upper stages one must never forget ullage, and RCS ullage seems to work better than little solid separation motors (for one thing, RCS seems immune to Test Flight). I haven't used Baby Sergeants in a while. I got the Altair kick motor before I had anything to launch Baby Sergeants on, but after using it a few times I discovered that a 2xAJ10-27 stage has significantly more dV when pushing the same payload. The Juno II Baby Sergeant setup (11, 3, 1) has some impressive dV (about 5200 m/s when it's just pushing an 8 kg Explorer), but individually, until you unlock the upgrades, the Baby Sergeant isn't that impressive (or reliable).

My experience with Real Fuels is in conjunction with RSS/RO/RP-1 -- the engines provided by the recommended support mods are (at least within what I've seen) historical, so each engine has its propellant mix set by the engine and you can auto-fill a tank by right clicking on it and selecting the correct set of propellants. For instance, if I'm building a rocket that uses kerosene/LOX in the booster, I size the tank initially (using procedural tanks, or select the tank I want from the pre-built ones), install the engine, and then right click the tank, and I'll see something like "Kerosene 48.3%/Liquid Oxygen 51.7%" on one option line, I might also see "MMH 50%/NTO 50%" on another line (for RCS or OMS thrusters) and "100% hydrazine" on a third (for the final satellite's station keeping thrusters. If you're creating your own engines (a process I'm not familiar with, because RO doesn't support it as far as I know) you'd have to do some basic research on what propellants do what -- for instance, kerosene and lox are pretty simple, you just have to get the balance right (usually a few percent fuel-rich relative to a "perfect" mix, both to favor carbon monoxide in the exhaust and to keep the flame temperature lower), but if you want to use something like kerosene and HTP (historical, used in the British Black Knight) you'll have to do a little more digging to find the ratios. There are bunches and bunches of propellants available, but out of all those, only a dozen or so liquids and 3-4 families of solid propellants have ever seen use outside a lab or perhaps a hot fire cell -- just because they don't offer much if any advantage in performance, and they're more hazardous. As with the Redstone family. originally built to use ethanol just like the A-4 -- Juno I and Juno II used an engine upgraded to run on Hydyne (a mix of UDMH and diethylenetriamine) to get higher performance for the first couple satellite launches in the US, but for Mercury/Redstone, NASA decided to forego the performance gain in favor of a fuel that was safer for the astronaut and ground crew in case of an accident, and went back to ethanol. Generally, now, there are kerosene/LOX, used mainly for boosters, hypergolics (MMH/NTO is very common) for upper stages because they don't boil away over reasonable periods like oxygen does, hydrogen/oxygen for the deep pockets programs where having a stage the size of a large building isn't considered a disadvantage, and monopropellants (currently almost always hydrazine or occasionally a hydrazine derivative), used for the simplicity of single-line plumbing.

Wow. What a coincidence, I'm playing in 1.3.1 (though I have a 1.4.3 save also that's been brought forward from 1.2.2 as each version came out) because that's the newest version that fully works with RSS/RO/RP-1/Principia. If I thought there was any chance of actually managing to keep an RO career running for the 100-200 years it would take to be able to build vessels that can reach that far, I'd certainly install Slippist-1 (in the alternate-star mode), to give my RSS Kerbals something to really aim for. Am I correct that Kopernicus can be convinced to make the Slippist system full Trappist-1 size? Because I clearly need a few more things to make my game take even longer to load...

Well, perhaps you should apply for those software engineer positions Squad has been advertising.

I killed Jeb in my "Take Five" RO career, by forgetting parachutes on the first crewed launch in the career. I'm pretty sure the same thing would work for Val -- it was a slightly modified A-4 (aka V-2), with a supersonic cockpit mounted on the nose, Aerobee fins at the pointy end and a very thin tank of lead ballast at the blunt end, to ensure a predictable reentry and sufficient aerobraking for parachute deployment. If I'd remembered to install the parachutes...

Wow. Everyone else gets close to the historical dates (despite 6-7 years later start than the 1944-1946 dates for WAC Corporal and captured A-4 launches), gets their facilities upgraded -- and I just go broke. Again and again. The last couple days, I launched three expensive failures before successfully completing my first weather sat contract. The Bumper E1 -- RD-103 plus 4x Castor 1 at launch, most recently set in pairs at 70% and 40% thrust to keep TWR in better condition, reducing gravity losses, second RD-103 with shortened tank, then three stages with various numbers of AJ10-27 -- for the first attempt fully tumbled the second stage, resulting in a breakup in flight. Then, on opening the game the first time next day, I mistook an old Bumper C2 in the build list for a current craft, and launch 680 units of sounding payload without a matching contract and on an orbital trajectory (with roundly 2000 m/s too little dV to make orbit). A second Bumper E1 tumbled the second stage but recovered with just about enough dV still to make orbit, then one engine on the final AJ10-27 stage failed to ignite, spinning the stage like a multi-hundred-fund pinwheel. Due to second stage instability and no easy fix (adding fins would require bigger base fins, cost a lot of launch weight, and eat enough dV to likely prevent orbit), I made the decision to hot stage, and the third Bumper E1, with the second stage ignited about 1.8 seconds before first stage MECO, stayed in line well enough to establish the required orbit (300 km minimum perigee, 0.005 maximum eccentricity, with 38 units of Weather Sat payload) -- but I was down to about 10,000 when it launched; too little to build and roll out another one (meaning an engine failure would likely have doomed the program). Now, I need to upgrade my second pad, to have adequate launch capability during construction after I manage to raise the funds to upgrade the main pad to handle the 120+ T of the upcoming Bumper F1, capable of launching probes to Lunar flyby, impact, and possibly orbit. I will likely use the advance for the first Lunar flyby contract for that upgrade, but I also need to upgrade Mission Control (in order to have maneuver planning, which hasn't been needed just for circularizing and deorbit), and with only Val remaining from the original four (the others have all retired over the latter half of 1961 and early 1962 -- I may be able to keep Val for a while longer, now that I can spare build time to launch another crewed suborbital flight for her), I'll need to hire more pilots, scientists, and engineers before I can fill out a crewed orbit and Lunar program. As I figure it, I'll need something like 8,000,000 funds over the next 2-3 years to keep the program operating, and I don't see those contracts -- that's hundreds of sounding rockets, many tens of weathersats or comsats (if there are that many such contracts), and much more than all the uncrewed Lunar missions I can get paid for.

Woops, misread -- you want movable joints. See above...

Yep. That's the easy way, anyway. On most modern systems, you can copy the whole KSP folder to another location on the same physical drive in a minute or two. On older systems, you probably aren't playing KSP anyway...

The proper comparison of the Mk. 2 Lander Can would be against the old Mk. 1-2 Command Pod, not against the newer Mk. 1-3. The old pod still held three Kerbals, but masses almost twice what the newer one does -- as if NASA had launched an Apollo boilerplate rather than a flight article Command Module. Before 1.4, the Mk. 2 Lander Can was the preferred component for anything 2.5 m diameter that didn't need to reenter or need Kerbals inside to control the vessel. If, in the future, it goes through a similar lightening to what the Command Pod did, it might be that again -- but in the meantime, if you have Making History, you have the LM-alike lander which goes very well alongside the Mk. 1-3 pod.

Two things -- first Mun landing and return (after deleting my first Science game due to ALL MY PILOTS being stranded in Munar orbit). And building a launch vehicle capable of Lunar missions using ethanol fuel in RSS/RO/RP-1. Who needs all that smelly kerosene?

Right. Though one wonders what'll be gained by installing fresh, and restoring the backup of the entire broken copy over the fresh one... Okay, I'm being obtuse, but generally, if you need to install clean and have things you want to save from the old install, you will absolutely need to copy portions of the install -- generally, saves, screenshots (though those needn't and, one could argue shouldn't go into the new install, they might need to be saved), ships (if not included in a save), etc.

From a real-world perspective, I expect the Mk.2 lander can has significantly more internal volume than the Mk. 1-3 Command Pod -- a (right, circular) cone has 1/3 the volume of a cylinder the same height, as I recall from 8th grade. Internal volume has a tendency to get filled up with stuff, which always weighs something.

Good grief! This discussion ought to be in the RO/RSS/RP-1 thread instead of clogging up "What did you do in KSP today?" -- but if I tried to keep up with every source for everything KSP, I'd never have time to actually play the game. Generally, it's sufficient if the versions I have installed lack game-breaking bugs and cooperated with each other.