Ethen Sun

Is my version, the screenshot at the very top, correct?

I just did that, took what he had and added MFI, nothing changes. Still loads a stock title screen and gets stuck on starting a new game.

I gave up on this after I didn't get any replies, but I'm getting the exact same problem when I try to install RealPlume. I've concluded it's a ModuleManager problem. As such, I've tried 2.8.1, 2.8.0, and 2.7.6, none of which work. I've tried a fresh install from both the game website and Steam, no luck. Is there anything to be had in the output logs?

I'm trying to install RSS on KSP 1.3. There's a patch that makes it work, and it works on my friend's computer. I've tried everything, from downloading the latest versions of ModuleManager, Kopernicus, ModularFlightManager all separately, to copying his entire GameData folder over, on a new install. Downloading the latest versions looks like this: It does the loading screen, then this: For six hours, before i gave up and closed it. Output log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B95i7_CURrkWTVlGbUwxci1lX0U/view?usp=sharing Copying his folder over makes GameData look like this: It loads the title screen, with a stock Kerbin, and upon trying to start a new game does the same black, spinning-planets screen for three and a half hours, before I turned it off. Output log for this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B95i7_CURrkWQlRNamJFR01tWUk/view?usp=sharing Note: the animation runs much smoother than it usually does, when it's actually loading something. Yes, I delete the cache files before trying it each time.

I have done a similar thing, with landing legs clipped through a lander can and elevons. Problem is, the drive only works when in contact with the ground, so it does little hops up to 30m in the air.

I tried it with an Mk3 cargo bay: Even closed, it sits very high in the water. Opening it just makes it do this, since it maintains the same crash box.

While it is somewhat overpowered compared to the other engines, this gets into the realm of real-life engines. The size is slightly smaller than the F1 bell nozzles on the Saturn IV-C, which are 3.7m and 6700 kilonewtons at sea level. I say the Vector fills a nice niche. When the Mammoth is not powerful enough to lift your payload, stick eight Vectors under your first stage tank. And off you go. Stick 30 of them there and you'll have a replica of the Saturn V first stage. The impact tolerance makes it easy to recover.

Newtonian mechanics is certainly not disproved, but is also invalid to describe the situation. Applying an outward force to open the doors should not cause the bay to move downwards. What I believe the game's logic is, is that opening the service bay floods it, reducing buoyancy, although this seems to be reversible without the use of any pumps.

Yes, that may be a concern. But for my craft, up at the top, it was the difference between -0.3m/s and 0.6m/s. It's either I use that or add more ballast. This effect would be most suited for small probes like mine, not big exploration rovers.

I just updated to 1.3, and decided to send a probe underwater to study KSP hydrology. Transported on an ICBM, of course. I don't know how much of this is new, if any, but here's what I got. One thing i forgot to do was bring solar panels and measure if their output was compromised at all. Telemetry and data signal do not seem to be affected. The first thing I noticed is that my probe wouldn't sink. Dang. Welp, I'm here, and some of the instruments are slightly in the water, so let's open the service bay and do a scan. When opened, the service bay sinks. When closed, the service bay floats. Interesting. This could prove to be useful for buoyancy control, recovering an undersea vessel. So down I go. Temperature decreases steadily, about 0.03 degrees per meter. Barometer shows sea level pressure, 101.325 kPa Gravity shows a very slight increase, here at the bottom, -1083m it shows 9.85m/s Atmospheric analysis cannot be run while sinking. At the bottom, the reading is the same as at the surface: "Temperature and Pressure readings suggest today is as good a time for flying as any." Interestingly, EVE clouds can be seen very clearly from the ocean floor. This data is from 65 35 48 S, 78 06 34 W.

About a week after I started playing (most of which was spent figuring out that I had to press space to launch), I go for a Mun landing using the Kerbal X. Great idea. I had absolutely no clue how anything worked, and spent basically all the lander's fuel getting to the Mun. Also, i tipped the damn thing over on landing, cleanly detaching the Command Module. As a noob, of course it had 3 crew. I had no idea of quicksaves and reverting, so I (gasp) MODIFIED the kerbal X to be unmanned, and landed it WITHIN A KILOMETER of the landing site! Wow! I fly everyone over with their EVA suit, and flew it home. Now, A year in, I have left the module there as a memory and proof of Beginner's Luck. Or maybe my natural talent in Kerbal Space Program. I don't know,

Threw Tamsie into the sun to see what the EVA report would say. Fired a missile, forgot about it, smashed into the rover Bill was driving. Never even saw it coming.

Any idea what it could be?

It's at 1.0 right now. What should I set it to so that the Mun actually blocks the signal?

Thanks. but does that mean the the Communotron 88-88 is capable of transmitting through the Mun? I am in sandbox, have max ground stations.

I have a probe orbiting the Mun very low, currently on Munar farside, with no comm links to any of my relays or Kerbin. But I still have full control over it, and it's even able to transmit science. I have Require Signal for Control turned on. Under what circumstances do I lose control? The probe has a Communotron 88-88 transmitter.

You could go into the save file, if you really need to know. Go to persistence.sfs, use Ctrl+F to find your craft, and it will be there in its orbital characteristics.

I just updated to 1.3, but if it works, I'll just stick to burning the shield off. Saves weight and is more Kerbal. By the way, the Panther Afterburning Turbofan existed in 1.0.5.

Yes, of course. I'm decoupling orange boosters two at a time as they empty, and the Kickbacks as they empty. The TR-38D in the middle of the picture decouples the mammoth at the bottom.

Seriously? Can you not see that I have 7 stages?

Umm.. I do. I have the Hydraulic Detachment Manifold on each one... And before you accuse me of not connecting it correctly, it does decouple.

Hello, I have just upgraded from 1.0.5 directly to 1.3 and many things confuse me. Particularly, fuel readings in the staging column. On an asparagus-staged rocket that worked fine in 1.0.5, the fuel gauges on the staging column for all the boosters show the same amount of fuel, even if some of them are empty, leading to me not knowing to stage until i was carrying four empty boosters. Right-clicking the tank shows the correct fuel level. I tried launching a stock craft (the Kerbal X) to see what would happen, and the fuel gauge worked fine. Apparently, the engine under the empty booster is continuing to run, meaning it must be drawing fuel from the other tanks. Aren't fuel lines one-way? Fuel flow seems to have become very complex, and I can't make heads or tails of it. My question is, what should I do to "fix" the staging column? I can deal with the current state, but it's more tedious having to check the tanks individually, considering how much my computer lags. I have EVE installed, otherwise all stock.

Oh, sorry, I neglected to mention that I'm still on 1.0.5.

I thought it was known that that doesn't do anything? Also the button isn't there during reentry for some reason.

Does the thrust limiter only affect thrust? What about heat production? I have a lander that has heat shields mounted under 4 Vectors, I plan on using the exhaust to burn the heat shield off when reentry is complete. It works at full thrust, but due to the nature of Vectors, I am turning the thrust down. Will this still work? Also, will blocking the engine like this reduce thrust as well?