Lisias

I think that Contract Configurator has something like that. I launch the craft only with the crew members, and then a Dialog appears asking me what the contract I'm going to fly, and then populate the craft with the respective tourists.

Usually, what you described happens with me when I delete something I should not - I do this now and then trying to diagnose problems on my heavily modded installment. However, I'm a Steam user for some time now (since KSP 1.4.0 hit the shelves), and I never had a problem with plain vanilla installments. I can only wonder what happened to you. Your first pass is, indeed, use the "Verify File Integrity" as proposed by Geonovast. - Right-Click on the KSP game, Properties, Local Files Tab.

ANNOUNCE Pre Release 2.4.0.4 available for testing, see OP for links. The NREs appears to be fixed. TweakScale is proved to work fine under the following environments: KSP 1.4.3 (with and without Making History) with TweakScale 2.4.0.4 and Impossible Innovations KSP 1.4.5 (with and without Making History) with TweakScale 2.4.0.4 and Impossible Innovations KSP 1.5.1 (with and without Making History) with TweakScale 2.4.0.4 and Impossible Innovations The current PreRelease appears to work fine on 1.5.1, however I forgot to update the code that checks against non supported KSP versions, and it is incorrectly stating that 1.5.1 is not supported. This will be fixed on the next PreRelease. This make TweakScale almost good enough to go gold. There're two, now proven unrelated, problems to be tackled yet. One is harmless (and it appears to be related to some other mod going a bit too much embracing), but the other still eludes me and I'm still considering dropping support for that add-on while I'm figure out what's happening. NOTE: To the ones willing to live dangerously and are taking their risks with the Experimental release, please update to the latest PreRelease of KSPe.

Since I said "sometimes", not "all the time".

About the end of the Space Shuttle Program, I found this:

As an addendum, sooner than later you get parts so heavy that you must start mangling with AutoStruts. And even Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement too. Just for the lulz, I once made a contraption so heavy that I had to use AutoStruts, then I had to add Struts, and I had to make sure that I AutoStrutted the Struts.

It's TweakScale related? If not, I humbly request you open a thread with your question on the this sub-forum and mark me, and I will do my best to help. Otherwise, what file? Giving me direct instructions about the problem is the best way for me studying the case in order to give good advice. It depends of the Part. If it's stock, it's pretty easy - see the "Squad/*.cfg" on the TweakScale installment. The "SquadExpansion" also has some good hints about how to use this. Custom parts that use only "stock modules" will behave identically. Things starts to boil when the parts use custom modules. For each non-stock module, TweakScale must have custom, specific code, in order to make things work. And sometimes, we stomp on each other's feet and things start to blow - in a very unsatisfying and annoying way.. Unholy interactions of modules are what Krakens are feed of.

Being a PRE-RELEASE, it's not meant to work on either. Currently, it's believed it works fine on the 1.4 series - the "certification" is work on progress.

That it what I was going to say: it's not Remote Tech that had a problem, but an unholy interaction between remote tech and some other module. Thanks for the info. It helped me to reduce my scope of research!

What's different from running better than what the guy have now.

[about Projects, Programs, Cost Centers and Budgets] It's of the upmost importance, because without this, absolutely NOTHING you are saying has any relevance or the most remote chance of being valid. And then, it's worthless spending time debating with you.

In time, GITHUB is failing on me. My editions to the issues (and the issues I create) are being ignored. On the Microsoft way…. — POST EDIT — Yeah. They borked.

That was what I would suggest. I intent to keep TweakScale "Lean and Clean" as possible, and then publish "Customizing Packages" where the user would add the extra features he/she wants. Humm… About that, yes. As soon as I manage to figure out an unholy interaction with another add-on, I will tackle this.

As long you keep the engines facing into the right direction!

Device drivers for old devices that doesn't exist or are bugged in the 64 bits. And memory footprint, as 64 bits programs usually needs twice the memory for data-structures (since everything, from ints to pointers, are 64 bits now). But, frankly, this doesn't applies to KSP….

In order to talk about budgets, you need to understand about budgets. I suggest you learn about this. Granted, you are not the only one doing such mistake. Additionally, you (well, not you. The guy you quoted) also put ISS on the mess. Somehow, someone thought it would be a good idea to use the cost per Kilogram of a Project to be used to "unjustify" the budget of an entire Space Program, disregarding all changes that such project had imposed to the Program that would not be needed if such project wasn't accepted. And yet somehow, you are still ignoring the fact that such decisions weren't from NASA, but from the very same people that would make decisions for Space Force. And you expect that Space Force would do differently? Essentially: someone on the Company decided it would be a good idea to buy Lamborghinis to deliver groceries. Now that the expenses blew the roof, that very same guy is blaming the Lamborghinis, and now he is planning to ditch the whole division for a new one. Where this very same guy plans to deliver groceries using Ferraris.

Again, you need to learn about Projects, Programs and Cost Centers. Some costs are amortizable, some others are pure expenses. Some Costs are split with others Programs, some don't. Some assets would be reused by new programs, some don't. And so on. And yet, it's exactly what you are doing to the Space Shuttle Program. We were not talking about the costs of the technology. We were talking about the costs of USING that technology. Two absolutely different things.

One argument in which you could be right about the Saturn B, is that probably this rocket would need less people to operate. (I don't really know, I'm brainstorming). Let's guess that 10.000 people would be necessary to this hypothetical Program. That's half of that 36B, we would had saved 18B on this. That would cut 133M usd from that gross cost of 1.5B per launch, that we have by dividing the total budget ofnthe whole space shuttle program by the 135 missions they flew. The Shuttle program was expensive, but not exactly due hardware (the Shuttle) and launching costs, but due the huge costs to keep things between the launches. And the accidents...

@Bill Phil hinted: costs on salaries, and I add others recurring costs as insurances, food, vehicles needed by moving personal and equipment (as tje SCA). Pile all that for 30 years. Let's take 60.000 USD/year as the mean salary for someone working on the Program (and I'm pulling out this number from my hat). With 20.000 people in the payroll, we have 20k * 60k = 1.2B USD year. In 30 years, that's 36B USD only in salaries. You need to fix and keep clean all the buildings. You need to pay for the electricity (Dude, the electrical bill for the VAB should be huge!). You need to pay for the Shuttle's storage when they are not flying. You need to pay for Insurances, and saddly, also for the compensations to the families of the victims of the accidents (and also the burial services). And also the expenses for the subsequential investigations about the accident's cause. And the list goes on. For the 30 years of the Program's life span.

More numbers to play: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1[ These are real numbers given by NASA. Now I have some more concrete info to play with. The Endeavor flew 25 missions, so 1.7B / 25 = 68M per flight. Since each launch had costed 450M, the total cost per launch of Endeavor was 68M + 450M = 516M. Again, less than two launches from Saturn B, that what we would need to do in order to accomplish the same mission: launching up to 20t of cargo to space with a working crew.

You are comparing the cost per flight of a rocket with the the total expenses of a program (including facilites - i.e. every single penny ever spent under the cost center "Space Shuttle Program", including snacks and coffee). I think that you need to learn about Projects, Programs and Cost Centers. The launching cost of the Space Shuttle was about 450M. We had 135 lanches, total 60.75B USD in launches. The whole program had cost about 196B, where 60.75 was due launches, so we have 135.25B USD that were spent on the facilities, salaries, insurances, rents, the 6 Shuttles themselves and their testing, and goes on. Your numbers are meaningless, you just don't understand how to contextualize them. Had we had 270 Space Shuttle Missions instead of 135, that 1.5 B you are claiming would had dropped to somewhat near 950M USD. And this number would still drop more as yet more missions would be launched. Real numbers, however, are beyond us because NASA doesn't broke down the expenses, so we don't really know how much of that 135.25B are recurrent costs (i.e., happens every month during the program life-span, as salaries, facilities maintenance and cleaning, and insurances) and how much was nonrecurring (i.e., the VAB, that they paid for only once and used forever).

The cost of each launch. 450M USD.

In time, @YNM, I answered wrongly to you (see above). Sorry for that.

Sorry, pal. You are pulling numbers from your… whatever. The WHOLE Space Shuttle program had cost about 196 Billion USD. We had 135 missions on that program, what by your numbers would had cost 135 * (1.5 + .45) = 263.25B USD only on hardware, maintenance and launches. Obviously, these numbers don't match. There's no point of arguing with someone that invent numbers just to keep arguing. I'm done with you. [the guy is misguided, just it. I withdrawn this phrase, with apologies to @Cassel]

Columbia flew into space 28 times. Each Saturn B did it only a single one. Do your math. — POST-EDIT -- And each time Columbia flew into space, it did the job of two Saturn B launches!