Lisias

What about Moment of Inertia? With weights in your hands and spreading the arms wide open, the Moment of Inertia of your body above the waist would be way bigger than below it. So, by rotating your wait, your legs will turn and not your chest. Then you invert: close your arms to your body and do a Van Damme - again with weights in the ankles. Now the lower portion of your body will have a way bigger Moment of Inertia than the upper body. So the upper body will rotate. Equation of moment of Inertia: So the I scales quadratically in relation to the radius. So a dumbbell weighting 10Kg will have a Moment Of Inertia of I = 10Kg * 10²cm (more or less) At your hands when you close your arms into your chest, and I = 10Kg * 88²cm (in my case, I just measured it) When you wide open your arms. Or: Iclosedarms = 0.1 kg⋅m2 Iopenarms = 7,744 kg⋅m2 So it's obvious that my chest will offer way less resistance due inertia with my arms wide open. If I connect two different Moment of Inertia on a gear on a friction less environment (It doesn't need even to be gravity less), and that gear applies torque on one of them, the one that will rotate will be the one with less inertia, right? I think we can easily prove this theory by using one of that Gym "rotary torso machines": Since your upper body is way heavier than your lower, if you twist your hips without securing your hands on the handles (not exactly advisable, they are there for a reason), your lower body will rotate because its inertia (and even the friction on the gears you are over) will be less than the upper body Moment of Inertia. Now tie some weights in your legs to make your lower body be heavier than your upper body and repeat the experiment. And there's also Tightrope Walking: The stick is there exactly to add Moment of Inertia to the walker, making easier to correct the attitude. All of them are the same concept: using Moment of Inertia to induce torque to counteract Inertia and even Gravity. I don't see why this would not work in space. That would be a smarter way to accomplish what I had proposed, I think. But the way I suggested allow a direct mapping to the Moment of Inertia equations and would be easier to validate or falsify mathematically.

What in the name of God?? http://sbarro.phcalvet.fr/voitures/aero/aerogb.html

Just found this video.... Star Paws, this video is from early this year. Apparently the russians also won this space race! https://www.reddit.com/r/starpaws/

And this is not a "fight", it's a healthy discussion, @Mr. Kerbin, To the best of my understanding I'm 99% convinced I'm right, but in honesty there's that 1% that I need to cope and, so, I concede that @PDCWolf may know something I don't (yet) and, so, he/she may be right about. This argument exchange aims to see if that 1% is going to bite my cheeks today. And you missed the point in which I used a parody site as argument. Crap. Anyway, I found that Zelda, on the other hand, was registered by Nintendo. They can't sue anyone by calling their daughter Zelda, but they can move against someone using Zelda as a videogame character AFAIK. And there's that singer case I mentioned on the (now edited) OP. This is how trademarks works at least around here where I live, and it can be both an evidence of you being right , but also me - depending in how we manage to "materialize" the object of this discussion: KSP2 is a good or a service? The difference matters (and, yeah, I know - this is going to get incredibly messy). Unless they consider that allowing a free KSP¹ Planet Pack using KSP2 names would hinder they ability to sell KSP2 - and, as I said before, it also strongly depends of KSP2 being a good or a service. You see: to be able to sue someone, the plaintiff must show evidences strong enough that he/she is suffering losses due the defendant using the trademarks unduly. (yeah, I'm finally finding my way on English legalese! ). You are saying that they didn't materialized the game using the names yet, but my understanding on Common Law Trademarks is that "use-in-commerce" claim works in a way that they don't need to. There's no "intent-to-use" claim n Common Law Trademarks, granted, but "The proof of use in commerce must also show the use of the mark in connection with the goods offered." All they need to do is to establish that they had connected DebDeb to KSP2 and so, they own these names when used in the videogame context - or, at least, in the Space Simulator one. And since they own the names, they may choose to prevent them from being used outside KSP2 . They will do it? Who knows. It would be a idiocy of epical proportions? HELL, YES. But the Law doesn't forbids people and companies from being idiotic about their properties. People and companies are entitled to be idiots - some of them even profit from it, believe it or not. Again, Nintendo. Assuming that they would not make money by shooting on their feet. Incredibly enough, Nintendo had proved again and again that you can shoot your own feet (both of them) and still make money from it. You can bet your favorite part of your body that I'll never, ever use any of my sweet money on Nintendo again (and if the need arises, I buy only if second hand to deny them the money). But, apparently, Nintendo doesn't care about me... History is littered with Companies destroying themselves on the long run in exchange of profits on the short run. Boeing? And this is the reason I recommending caution from left to right - we just don't know what is going to come. Because they didn't figured out a way to make money by doing it, neither concluded they would lose money by not doing it - ie, the benefits (if any) don't outweigh the drawbacks. Be absolutely sure this will change otherwise. They don't need to win the case. It's enough to convince the defendant to do not defend him/herself by any reason, like not willing to foot the money. And since we don't know how much the new IP owner values their reputation (not to mention what they consider "good reputation", again see Nintendo), I really don't think it's wise to put your eggs on this basket for now.

Moved to :

But, by them, only you would be informed about the issue. And no one would be able to correct me if I make a mistake. We aren't derailing the original thread anymore, discussing this subject here is the right thing to be done. @PDCWolf have his/her reasons to think the way he/she does. But I also have my own. The logical thing to do is to take what he had said, and take what I had said, and ask some lawyer about - it's not impossible that an obscure exemption exists somewhere beyound my sights. And while you don't do that, better safer than sorrier: IMHO my proposal is safer: if I'm wrong, you lose nothing by considering it. And if I'm right, you may dodge a bullet if needed.

Moved from another thread, as we were asked not to keep discussing it there. Pinging @Mr. Kerbin, @PDCWolf, @Gargamel and @Deddly as you are involved or reacted to the posts somehow. A Star called Debdeb to be used in games have the exactly same uniqueness as Tatooine® have uniqueness when used on Movies... or Videogames. Tatooine® is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm. And if they can register it, the future IP owner (if a USA company) can do the same on Common Law Trademarks. Curiosity: the use of real Celestial Bodies names were trademarkable, and to prevent that all these names are published on a compendium called Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature that are Public Domain. Don't liked it? Sue the USA's usgs.gov. Nintendo doesn't agree with you. Nintendo doesn't agree with you ** (the right material this time) In fact, their profits appear to increase the more they sue people over their Copyrights and Trademarks. WE DON'T KNOW who the next IP owner are and what they intend to do with the trademarks (registered or not). We don't know how they intend to monetize the Franchise (being dead or not) to recoup the investment. All we know is that someone is using money buying this thing, and more often than not people and companies buying assets want to make a profit from them. So, answering again the user: Yes, they can. It's possible, unfortunately. They will? Probably not - but no one can affirm in honesty that they won't. Anything can happen, including nothing. But you can do your best to avoid giving them reasons to do it. They would not use money suing you without a reason - the less the reasons you manage to give them, less likely they will move against you. And, again, even if they do the move, just rename the planets and relaunch the add'on. You still own your work, you only would be waving using names that they would own and not you. And Modding is allowed on this Forum. === == = POST EDIT = == === The link for the Nintendo suing someone called Mario was a parody. Damn, I fell for it. But Zelda is trademarked. So if anyone uses the name Zelda on a game with characteristics that Nintendo considers to refer to them, they can sue. Fun fact: In Brazil, names can be trademarked. A famous singer registered his name, and then tried to sue a business using the same name. Thanks God, he lost. But... The judge accepted the lawsuit, so he could had won. https://www.conjur.com.br/2021-abr-22/vinculacao-rei-imobiliaria-roberto-carlos-manter-nome/

Remembering Start Trek Classic!

No. It IS a potential trademark issue. The user is not asking if he/she can use the assets from KSP2 (what would be a copyright issue). The user is asking about using the names (what's not a copyright issue - but can be a trademark issue). Additionally... Please remember: USA is a Common Law ruled country, the current IP owner is a USA Company, we don't know if the next IP owner is also a USA Company, and the trademarks on a Common Law country works differently from a country ruled by the Roman Law. You don't need to register a mark to own it on USA, you are exercising the so called "Common Law Trademark", and this is defensible on a Court of Law. As I said before, Copyrights, Trademarks et all are a royal pain in the cheeks.

If they are trademarked, yes they are. Try to sell something with the name "Mickey Mouse" nowadays (I only know a single case of success, to tell you the true). I had seen lawsuits about names before - but, as I had said before, Companies can sue us by picking our noses while playing if they find a way to profit from it, so some of that lawsuits I'm aware could be just legal trolling (it happens). Copyrights and Trademarks are two completely different things, anyway. In a way or another, I still suggest to handle the case as they would be protected this way. There's nothing to gain in doing it or not, but there's potentially something to lose by not doing it. You are dealing with their IP in a way or another: if the names are not defensible, they will use something else that is. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Valve choosing not to exercise their rights doesn't means they don't have such rights See the Mickey Mouse example above.

Theoretically, the owner of the IP can sue any of us for any reason they would like, like picking our noses while playing. If the Clerk will file it, or the Judge will not dismiss it, it is a completely different history. So, a better question would be "would the new IP owner request me to take down my mod if I do it?", and the answer is... maybe, but I don't see why they would do it as long you don't charge money for the add'on and make clear that KSP2 "owns" the names you are using - i.e., you acknowledge the trademarks and don't claim they are your own. The absolute majority of cases I had see about were about defending the trademarks - the companies are compelled to sue you because otherwise they risk losing their rights. But with you acknowledging they are the legal owners of the names you are using, you remove this variable from their equation. Unless when led by pathological narcissists (some are, unfortunately), Companies only sue people if they are going to lose something if they don't, or if they are going to gain something if they do. Keep this in mind, and you will dodge a lot of legal bullets in the future by preventing them from being fired at first place. You would be using these material in the claim of Fair Use (or Fair Dealing in UK, or whatever) - but this part you don't need to state on any document, it's necessary and sufficient that you state correctly who owns what, and this is enough. In legalese, less is usually more. Modding in general are a somewhat gray area - we here on KSP¹ were incredibly lucky on being part of a development process where modding were not only encouraged, but actively promoted by the (at that time) IP owners. We have even (mostly) clear rules about what is permissible or not around here. To the best of my knowledge (and this is the time in which the Law demands me to say "I'm not a lawyer, please seek professional counseling to confirm my opinions"), you should be fine by doing it, as long: Do not even imply, by omission or whatever, you "own" any involved Copyrights and Trademarks. Make clear who owns what. It's the reason I spam my repositories with a file called NOTICE. Promptly comply with a rightful take down notice from the IP owners. You are entitled to ask for proof of ownership, but usually you will know they are the owners because they will hire a lawyer to reach you. You are also entitled to fight back, but... What you would gain by doing it? What you would lose by not doing it? Always answer to yourself these questions before attempting anything legal. Don't devalue yourself neither. Even if the "worst" happens, you can relaunch later your add'on changing the names. You will still own anything you create yourself, you are only liable by using what others created themselves. Copyrights, Trademarks et all are a royal pain in the cheeks. It's unfortunate we, pro bono authors, have to deal with this crap, but... Life is what life is. Don't hesitate to ask for further information - or even evidences to confirm anything I said. In fact, I strongly encourage you to doubt anything and everything and ask (perhaps privately) for evidences (what I will gladly oblige). Cheers!

Continuing with the ongoing current project: After "fixing" the LKO Crew Shuttle by putting the project back on tracks, Bill proceeded to review and update the related projects (Launcher and the Mün Shuttle Variant and her respective Launcher). Nobody dared to stop him at this point, he was triggered! _ All right! Who was the crazy SAS that cooked up this Mün Shuttle Launcher?? I don't know if he's a genius or a madkernal, but the damned thing works! - exclaimed Bill, between scared and amazed - I have to ask: it was Jebediah? _ I hear someone call by my name? Ah, this? Yeah, it was me. I'm playing lately with this cute Space Sim called Human Space Program, and I found this concept on a post on their Forum. You should try it, Bill. It's a cartoonish space game with pretty hilarious characters obsessed with things like economics, survivability and safety - besides failing spectacularly on all of them now and then! _ I don't know what scares me more: you being the one coming with this solution, or from where you got it... Anyway, it works. And better than the LKO Launcher, besides being a bit pricey. But its clearly an amateur job (no offence intended). _ None taken! - replied Jeb - I am an amateur on engineering after all! But I'm looking ahead for your next flight lesson... _ Fair enough... - said Bill laughing. Now back to business. You over engineered the thing a bit: too much (and complex) stages and, incredibly enough, you are wasting some fuel in exchange for... stability and safety! Was you feverish or something? _ - Jeb _ It was a good job, anyway. Just not optimal. Here, this is new blueprint... _ See, with 4 TT-70 Decouplers instead of two, we could redistribute better the stresses over the Shuttle's wings and got rid of that engine assembly behind them - it was the only real"unsafety" by the way, as any RUD there would surely cause that small tank you used to connect the engines subassemblies to collide into the wings, dooming the Shuttle. _ You also is wasting a lot of fuel, besides using 6 Hammer SRBs on launch. Fuel is cheaper than hardware, granted. But they are expensive on mass and mass is very costly. I replaced the 6 Hammers with 4 Thumpers, just a bit more expensive, but with a hell of an extra stamina allowing to reduce a lot the amount of fuel tanks. It ended up being cheaper this way! _ On the other hand, I kept your idea of jettisoning the empty fuel tanks from the main boosters. Clever, you saved some fuel doing that. I also liked the sepatrons being used as retro-boosters on the main booster, guaranteeing them to be deorbited instead of littering the LKO with space junk. _ In a way or another, the Mark 2 Launcher has 7 less parts and is ~4,500 cheaper. _ Bill... - replied Jeb - By shoving the Reliants on the Shuttle's back, you are not making her wobbly after jettisoning half of the main booster's fuel tanks? _ Yes. She was wobbling a tiny little bit before, but now things are somewhat worse. I strongly suggest you to manually jettison them before circularization. I could not program MechJeb2 to reliably stabilize her in full thrust after that point. You will have enough fuel to do it with the Valiants, so this will not be a problem. I ended up adding some extra monopropellant and RCS linear thrusters to help on the matter. _ Wait! - interrupted Jeb - I'm seeing it right? Is William Kerman doing a... GAMBIARRA? _ Yep... - complied Bill somewhat embarrassed - Sometimes it's the most practical solution, indeed... _ Anyway, I just had set up the Simulator. Go taker her for a ride - remember to jettison the Reliants before they became too much for MJ2 to control her. _ I wonder if there's something more I can do for her... - said Bill to himself as Jeb rushes to the Simulator with a menacing grin in his face. Full details and craft downloads here .

Perhaps not. Take 4 weights (didn't even tried to calculate how much mass you need on each), tie them in your wrists and ankles. Then: Close your legs and spread your arms. Twist your body below the waist to the right; Spread your legs and close your arms. Now twist your body above the waist to the right; Rinse, repeat. I doubt the physical efforts will worth the stunt (not to mention managing to rotate only on the desired axis), but just for the sake of the bragging rights, yes, you can rotate in space without expelling or touching something without Newton deciding it's time to update his résumé. Someone knows someone that can talk to someone on ISS? This may be something fun to try if they have enough space somewhere there. Additionally, since space is curved, if you are orbiting something you can tie some weight on a long rope and tie it your feet and then throw the weight away slowly so the rope elasticity don't bring it back when the rope stretchs. The Gravity Gradient will, eventually, put you in a radial out or radial in position and you will stay there, slowly rotating to keep your attitude. You can even "swim" on a curved space. https://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/swimming_through_empty_space

So, coming back to my little project I started: After the (surprising) good results from Jeb collaborating with the R&D on the Mün Crew Shuttle Launcher, I decided to summon Bill and Val to the project. When something appears to be too easy to be true, it's because it's usually is! The Shuttle project, besides solid, was deemed unfeasible during a more thoughtfully CBA. It's relying on parts from too much advanced tech levels, demanding some expensive upgrades on the KSC facilities - not to mentioning the Science points to unlock them on the tech tree. _ Why you are using the Big S parts on this project? - asked Bob - You are delaying the production of the vehicle by more than 1.6M on R&D upgrades, and about 850 more Science points - we would need to research Heavy and Experimental Aerodynamics just for these 3 parts. The upfront cost is just too much high now..." _ I hate to wave that wings, in special the Big S elevons... - counter-argued Val - I tried the project on the Simulator, and flying her is really a breeze even on reentry - except by that crappy settings for the Landing Gears, it's like riding a crazy horse on a rodeo. Jeb, did you ever tried a landing on the Simulator? _ Uh... Landing? This Shuttle is supposed to land?? - answered Jeb with the tongue on his cheek, the closest of an admission of had forgetting it you could extract from him... _ Okie Dokie, interrupted Bill, spawning from nowhere. Less talk and more action. I fixed the Shuttle project while you were discussing, this is the Mark 1 blueprints. You guys also forgot a radiator, were you planning to cook some PAX? Good thing I crashed your party, uh? Val wasn't exactly happy on the Simulator - the Mark 1 stalls a bit sooner and needs more elbow grease to fly due being somewhat more unstable and having a bit less lift than Mark 0. _ I kinda liked it, put some guns on it and it will be a nice heavy fighter! - said Jeb - but you are going to need some vomit bags for the PAX. _ I'm going to land her too hot for relying only on the wheel breaks now. How about some chutes? We can TweakScale them too, right? - complained Val. _ I have a better idea. There's this dual elevons configuration, together they double as airbreaks. - said Bill. Try her now. They also should help on the stability issues. _ Val, take your VR helmet. Let's give her another try. Did you know that we can take her off from the Runway? It's only 150 seconds of full trust, but it's enough for a smoke test on the handling and landing capabilities! _ Okay Jeb, but I will pilot her. I saw you and Bill doing a Cobra Maneuver over the runway before touchdown instead of using the air-breaks, you maniacs - and I just had lunch... Full details and craft downloads here .

Easily fixable. See below! Unsure if anything SHOULD be made about. It's possible that the root cause is already fixed, but only by inspecting the real date of every affected page (what will demand a bit more of code from my side) to be certain. What I know for sure is that there're occurrences in 2011, 2013 and 2016, and that there's currently a maximum of 5450 hits (unaccurate, I didn't sanitized the November data, so there're some double hits, and it's not impossible that a page could have more than one occurrence, and I'm only counting one per page). All but 4 hrefs are related to link to a profile, being the reason nobody detected it before I think. These 4 occurrences, on the other hand, are pretty ugly (really messed up html code) but is not related to topics or posts, so are harmless for our needs. In a universe of 1.78M of urls (until this moment), it's less than a drop on the ocean statistically. So, definitively, it's not a MUST be done. But something CAN be done, if needed. This is a simple html page: <html> <head> <title>Hello World</title> </head> <body> <h1>Hello World!!</h1> <p>Hi Bob! <a href="https://for-all-mankind.fandom.com/wiki/Hi_Bob">Click Me!</a></p> </body> </html> This will render an web page titled "Hello World" (the string that appears on the browser's tab), and a blank page with "Hello Word!!" in big letters, and with "Hi Bob!" em normal letters below, followed by "Click me" that it's a link that once clicked will open the page in fandom. Now, I want to create a program that would generate a page like that, but using different values for the salute and for the link - but instead of creating manually one page for each possible entry, I use a template engine with a... well... template for the page and a database with the values and then iterate these values on the template engine, that spits the html code to NGINX, that so sends the page to the user's browser. So, imagine a database with the following dataset: SALUTE URL Hi Bob! https://for-all-mankind.fandom.com/wiki/Hi_Bob Hello there children! https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hello%20there%20children And the following template: <html> <head> <title>Hello World</title> </head> <body> <h1>Hello World!!</h1> <p>${SALUTE} <a href="${URL}">Click Me!</a></p> </body> </html> And them I write a "Forum" that reads all the lines of the database one by one, and apply the data on the template, generating a different page by replacing ${SALUTE} and $URL with the values found on the database, selected by something in the user's browser address bar. And now I can change the page layout on the template, and all I need to do is to rerun the template engine again to regenerate the new pages. It's, literally, the programmatically equivalent of a Word Processor's Find & Replace. Now, what happens if I do a typo, and instead of typing "${URL}", I do just "{URL}"? Well... <html> <head> <title>Hello World</title> </head> <body> <h1>Hello World!!</h1> <p>Hello there children! <a href="{URL}">Click Me!</a></p> </body> </html> Because the template was looking for "${URL}", it didn't replaced the text on the href, and then when the user clicks on the link on the rendered page, an error occurs. What happened on Forum is similar. Some template was (is?) wrong. Instead of "<a href=${___base_url___"/${user_profile}>${user_name}</a>", someone made a mistake and typed "<a href={___base_url___"/${user_profile}>${user_name}</a>". Go to one of the indicated topics (or threads - I'm using the code's terminology here), and ask the Browser to see the page's Source. On the source, look for "___base_url___". You will notice that this weird string should be replaced by "https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com" to make things work. It's a typo on the template used to generate the content, it's missing a "$" before the "{" on the source code , so instead of replacing the text with the desired value, it's handled like content and spit it ipsi literis into the html.

I found something weird on the Forum's content. I found these two URLS on my "ALL" report this month (not meaning they weren't there before, I just noticed them today): https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/%7B___base_url___%7D/index.php?/profile/128696-killashley/ https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/%7B___base_url___%7D/index.php?/profile/42312-alexsheff/ Note the "%7B___base_url___%7D" substring, that unencoded gives us "{___base_url___}". Obviously, it's a typo somewhere in the code (believe me, I'm expert on typos! ). Almost surely is a missing "$" after the opening curly braces. Curious about the issue, and knowing that this kind of issue reproduce like rabbits I coded a quick report for all the occurrences on the current (and WIP) WARCs , but there're too many to list them here, so https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/KSP-Forum-Preservation-Project/issues/15 The earliest thread with the problem is 278, and the biggest id is 209425. Follow some of them: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/278-this-is-a-topic-for-all-them-crazy-dutchbelgian-people/ (2011) https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/181547-181-1-please-fork-me-kopernicus-kittopiatech/ (2016) https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/209425-ksp1-computer-buildingbuying-megathread/ (2013!!) Curiously, the thread ID 209425 is way older than 181547. NEWS FROM THE FRONT Internet Archive is fully functional again! So... Release for the 2024-10 is finally online into the Internet Archive torrent. https://archive.org/details/KSP-Forum-Preservation-Project

Whoops.. what expires in 1.5 hours are the cache (and right now I can't find the source, so better to take this with a grain of salt). Sorry. But the discord's links are set to expire in 24 hours, what's bad the same. https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/discord-tightens-security-with-temporary-file-links

Not exactly a question, but a suggestion. Would be feasible to block images being posted from the domain cdn.discordapp.com ? Such images are available only for 90 minutes, 24 hours and so anything linking to it is, essentially, littering Forum.

MechJeb? It's you?

I know squat about how Kopernicus works but... it's possible to hot redefine a Celestial Body's gravity? If yes, you can try to simulate the Lagrange by adjusting the "black hole" gravity according to the kinectic potential energy of the approaching vessel. Vessels coming too hot would trigger a no gravity state, while vessels approacing the point within a defined range of kinectic potential energy would trigger increasing levels of gravity. Let's call these... "Black Roles". Obviously that this brings a whole new set of problems, like what to do when a second craft is approaching. But it may be an acceptable solution if we manage to solve these new problems.

Medevac for injured astronauts doing EVA to the Lunar Base for the Artemis III.

NASA is granting 45K USD to who design a rescue mission for Astronauts on Moon! NUFF SAID! https://www.herox.com/NASASouthPoleSafety

I had ran out of "decent" ideas. All I had left are... well... guesses. Let's try an educated one... I had noticed that from the 3 error.log you published, two had a stackdump from the crashed thread like this: Stack Trace of Crashed Thread 19680: 0x00007FFA5FAD2BC4 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FAD2D32 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FA97F98 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FC05ED8 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FC06F3C (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FC06007 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FC06317 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FC07460 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFA5FCF2D68 (UnityPlayer) UnityMain 0x00007FFAD205259D (KERNEL32) BaseThreadInitThunk 0x00007FFAD3AAAF38 (ntdll) RtlUserThreadStart Not even the addresses had changed between the error.log from Crash_2024-11-18_154605485 and Crash_2024-11-20_004532304 , the only difference is the thread number: 7648 on one and 19680 on another. So, whatever is happening, is happening inside Unity, and may not be being caused by the PQS - perhaps the PQS is the screaming victim on this ordeal: something inside Unity gets screwed, and then PQS by some reason dies on a NRE due it before Unity completely lose it and dies too. Since on at least one of the crashes the thing happened on FAR instead of PQS, this hypothesis is not without some teeth. Well... Now let's roll some dices. I know that Unity makes use of spinlocks and busywaits. And I had had problem with these things in the past. Some long past, from Turbo Pascal borking on the "fast" Pentium MMX at 200 MHz to Windows 95 doing the same on the newest Pentium IV at 2GHz. The problem? There was code relying on busywaits to sync things, but with the CPU running at "lightning speeds", the loop counter couldn't hold the number of loops needed for that processor and so everything relying on that sync routines gone down in flames. What if your problem is being caused by something like that? Do you have how to "underclock" your CPU? Throttle it down to half to see if something changes? Ok, it's a guess, but it's not a (completely) wild one.

It just came to my mind now... Did you tried a Steam Integrity Check (if installed from Steam), or reinstall a completely pristine copy if KSP from the original packages? (only relevant if you are running from SSD)

That's the whole idea. You can add anomalies, remove them all, you name it - KT will find its way. No to mention that you can create your own mission templates too for any extra anomaly you add to the planetary system. (Contracts for anomalies are only presented for anomalies you had discovered)