AHHans

Good idea! (Both suggestions, the total dV for all maneuver nodes, and showing the dV for upcoming maneuver nodes next to the navball.) Up to now I clicked through the list of planned maneuvers in that extra pane and did some math in my head to at least get an approximation, but that's a bit painful...

I don't know, I only use KAC. But you might want to ask on the Add-on subforums.

Well, I wouldn't rename it but make a copy of it. (In order to keep a backup of the original.) It might also be useful to "Verify Integrety of Game Files" to check if any of the program files got corrupted. P.S. I just did the verify myself, and it did find modified files. So I guess KSP is doing some things that confuse Steam. Maybe only do the verify if you run into further problems. (It also didn't break anything.)

Small correction / improvement. But what would IMHO be more important is to make the error message more prominent. Well, actually issue a "this didn't work" beep when trying to save an improper subassembly. When I ran into that problem it took me a while until I saw that there is an error message and that it wasn't a case of KSP not responding to my inputs.

Not having multiple KAL controlers trying to control the same hinge? ... Have the Pitch, Yaw and Roll controllers not control the hinges directly, but control the play position of another (per hinge!) KAL controller. This "Hinge-translation" controller needs to have a track length of 1 (second, but that doesn't matter here), and then you can mat the input range of 0.33 -- 0.66 to the full angle range of the hinge. (O.K. I'm tired. If that doesn't make sense, then ask me again tomorrow...) P.S. Hmmmm... Ah, no, you cannot program conditional jumps. So no Turing complete computer from KAL-1000s.

Hmmmm... When I try to replicate that - have 3 KAL controllers controlling the "target angle" of the same hinge, and the three KAL controllers in turn have their "play position" set with "absolute control" - then the target angle of said hinge seems to be set to the average of the three controllers.Not necessarily what you want (you don't get full deflection), but probably workable. Hmmm... The GUI for your KAL track editors looks like you are using an older version. (I have KSP 1.7.3.2594 BG 1.2.0) I guess it'll help if you update to the latest version.

Not sure about that. Might be better to ask an actual lawyer.

Well, I can't think of a reason why it should be a problem having loads of other people watching you playing KSP. Or why anyone should bother if that's your friends, random people on the internet watching your youtube videos, or students that you are teaching. I also don't think it would be a problem if you let other people play on your laptop. (Giving them a copy of KSP without a license is a problem though.) But more importantly is that you should have a look at KerbalEDU. E.g. on the KerbalEDU subforums here.

Well, they made a start at KIS, maybe we'll also get some KAS sometime. Engineers are always the superstars! ... Oh, you mean in the game.

Do you also need SAS or the manual trim to use these control surfaces? Do you need them to react to more than one axis (i.e. pitch and roll)? Partial control with SAS on only one axis (e.g. roll) should be doable: set the elevons to not manually extended, but to respond to roll commands have a KAL-1000 to control the authority limiter on the elevons for the upper elevons have the track be zero for the first half and 100 (or whatever you want) for the second half for the lower elevons have the track be the other way around (100 for the first half and zero for the second half) feel free to add the middle elevons if you want. to allow SAS control make sure that at the center of the track both (all three) have the authority limiter set to 100 (or whatever) (I'm not sure that I got first and second half right, so it may be the other way around!) have the roll axis control group set the "absolute" "play position" on the KAL-1000 That way, when you give manual inputs, the KAL will prevent the upper elevons from moving when you pitch down, and the lower elevons won't move when you pitch up. When you don't give manual inputs then the KAL will be at the center of the play position, so SAS should work but will move both elevons. And maybe some time in the future Squad will fix the SAS issue: report on the bug-tracker. P.S. I think this fits better in the Gameplay Questions subforum, so I'll suggest that to the moderators.

Well, especially with lateral forces they aren't all that strong. But in this instance I only apply longitudinal compression forces, they can handle those well enough. And I lock them before I start accelerating which also helps. Ah, no. My recent encounter of exhaust obstruction was in a plane but with no clipping: I had the horizontal stabilizer on the tailplane in the path on the jet engines, i.e. the engines blew onto the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer. In KSP this doesn't mean that I get good pitch authority because I effectively have thrust vectoring, but that I don't have thrust at all...

What also should work is angling the engines to point outwards so that the exhaust doesn't hit the asteroid. You'll loose some thrust because the engines are not all pushing in the same direction, but if the setup is symetrical then it should work fine. My "Class E Tug" is a pusher design. It has five Klaws (one in the center and four in a square around it) on the front that are mounted on robotic pistons (from the BG DLC). That allows me to have all five Klaws connected to the asteroid while still pointing towards the center of mass.

Well, you can keep control if you add a probe-core to the robot-arm itself. But you still cannot inchworm from Klaw to Klaw, because once you release the first connection (I tested it with a Klaw, and a decoupler) then the "secondary" Klaw looses it's connection. I now recall that in the change logs for one of the 1.7.x updates it was mentioned that this was fixed for docking ports. I guess the people at Squad didn't think of the Klaws when they did this. Ah, yes, chaining a lot of robotics parts together is a floppy business. It gets less floppy when using servo locks, but then managing the locks can get tedious...

You're welcome. I hope this will be fixed in 1.8.

Is this a case of "Check Yo Stagin'!"? The seperatrons and the corresponding decoupler(s) should be triggered in the same stage. If not, can you explain a bit more what your problems are? Do you have the external fuel duct unlocked? Without it you won't have (automatic) fuel transfer, even if your craft doesn't actually use the fuel duct. But for aspargus staging I'd recommend using the fuel duct anyhow, it makes it easier to design and debug the craft. You craft uses mods, so I cannot have a look at it. I'd suggest to removed the mod parts and re-upload the craft file.

I use neither mods nor have I made a real robot arm, so there is very little that I can help you with. But I have two comments: If you want to keep your part count low, then is there an alternative to the Klaw? You could make a grabber with the robotic parts and grip-pads, but that'll use quite a few more parts than a single Klaw. And once you get to testing your creations I encourage you to test out locking (engaging the servo lock) the robotic parts. That makes them much more rigid and allows autostruts to traverse the robotic parts. (But don't activate autostruts on the robotic parts themselves, that's still bugged.)

There is a value in the savefiles that you can edit to fix this ("ScienceTimeDelay"), or install the mod below. The value for this is in-game time in seconds. The mod below will set this to 6(hours)*3600(seconds/hour)=21600(seconds). So e.g. if you keep clicking on "warp to next morning" you'll get one message from each running experiment per click. P.S. A Kerbin day is 6 hours!

Well, once you got her grappled with a Klaw you can also land her on Kerbin. Either with a careful reentry (propulsively slowing down enough that the heating is survivable), sheltering her in a cargo bay, or behind a heat-shield. Now that I think about it: you don't necessarily need to grab her with a Klaw to shelter her in a cargo bay. In short: there are many ways to rescue a Kerbal that is stranded without EVA fuel. Leaving them to orbit indefinitely is just cruel! (Well, it's not like we all haven't done cruel things to Kerbals on occasion...)

Nope! There is a slider in the difficulty settings called "Crew respawn timer". (Which is directly below the toggle button "Missing Crews Respawn".) The default for Easy and Normal difficulty is 2 hours, for Moderate and Hard the default is that missing crews do not respawn. You can also check in the Astronaut Complex. If they are listed as "Missing in Action" then they will respawn. If they are listed as "Killed in Action" then they won't respawn. I believe that if they will respawn, then you can just time-warp for the required time and they'll be back. But save and reload will not help.

Here is my submission: Unpowered asteroids are for wimps. P.S. Yes, I got the idea from @5thHorseman. If you want your own, check out my Flying Rock Kit on KerbalX. P.P.S. And, yes, using my forum name is fine.

I guess the propeller design has helped there quite a bit. The electric rotors are the heaviest parts of the craft at 2.25t each. So they add quite a bit of mass in front of the center-of-lift. And I think that the spinning propellers also help to stabilize the craft. They may (or may not) have some gyroscope effect, but more importantly by setting the blade pitch one can pretty much just set the airspeed of the craft. At low-ish speeds (below 80 - 100 m/s depending on the craft) they generate quite large amounts of thrust both for speeding up and for slowing down (when you are going fast enough that the angle of attack on the blades becomes negative). I don't think I could successfully land that craft - without it falling over in one direction or another - if I couldn't slow it down by setting the prop pitch to zero. (And, well, just having power available to get yourself out of an unstable situation is also helpful.) I'm not much of an asteroid-purist. Edit: P.S. I put my asteroid upgrade kit onto KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/AHHans/Flying-Rock-Kit

What was your problem? Burning up during re-entry? I did use a mined-out class A asteroid, that only weights 0.3339t, but getting that de-orbited and transitioned to flying in the atmosphere was no problem. I just gave it a test: only lowering the periapsis to 50km (with apoapsis a 100km) and no further use of propulsive braking (the rocket that brought the parts up still had plenty of fuel left). Still no problem. The hardest part for me was getting the *bleep* Klaws to stick in a way that the wings and tailplane are reasonably straight. (Which is why the tailplane is so much offset.)

After yesterday's slight mishap during a test-flight Jebediah launched a fairly standard rocket, and subsequently spent a few hours in orbit. Scott Kerman from the tracking center just commented that "Jeb seems to assemble something in LKO", but refused to tell more. We all knew something was up: he was snickering too much! When Jeb finally returned from orbit, he did it in (well, more precisely "on") a rather peculiar craft: his very own flying asteroid: Mortimer was not amused: "You can park your asteroid there!" "What, that's the KSC parking space, isn't it?" "Yes, but not for asteroids!" "What? is it my fault that we haven't designed a parking space for asteroid - plane conversions?" Closing remarks: We all know that flying asteroids is a dangerous business. Accidents can and do happen. But that freezing to death is one of the dangers? Standing still on the runway of the KSC? In bright sunshine? That's a bit unexpected: P.S. Big shoutout to @5thHorseman who had the original idea!

Yes please Warjaklar.(*) O.K. Here it is: https://kerbalx.com/AHHans/Basic-Quadcopter P.S. (*) Yes, that's German. After a fashion.

Well, not really. With the robotic parts some of the pieces of vessels tend to shift against each other over time. In particular on Eve. (I suspect that when a craft is loaded the landing legs push against the rest of the craft and move around the pieces that they are connected to.) But with SAS on it flies straight as an arrow. (Not really. Those curve downwards.) One trick is to point the plane slightly downwards, so that when the planet curves away it doesn't wind up pointing too far upwards and getting too high before you are back.