jimmymcgoochie

That video doesn’t really show what the problem is, it looked like a fairly standard launch although you pitched (yawed?) over too far, too fast and you’re trying to head-butt your way through the air too quickly. A few things that might help: Drag. You have too much of it! Add a fairing just under the decoupler below the heat shield and use it to make that blunt front end pointy and smooth which will reduce drag at the front of the rocket. Fins. Those two fins on the boosters aren’t that helpful, take them off and put four of them on the centre stack, right at the base, offset by 45 degrees to the boosters which will provide more than ample stability and control at low altitudes. Control. You have almost none since the probe core’s reaction wheels are far too weak to control a whole rocket during launch, SRBs have no gimbal and the swivel engine is throttled down low so its gimbal is ineffective. You could add a reaction wheel to the probe and a larger one to the top of the first stage, or just dial back the SRBs and use the Swivel at full thrust. Thrust. It’s overkill to use two Thumpers at full power for a rocket that small, reduce their thrust to ~30% so you don’t speed up too much when the atmosphere is thickest. If your main engine is burning too much fuel when you do that, add small fuel tanks to the top of the boosters and set ‘enable crossfeed’ on the radial decouplers so that those tanks drain first and can be dumped with the boosters- it’s more efficient than adding them to the stack Struts. Turn on advanced tweakables then add autostruts between the boosters (and all the parts attached to them) to their grandparent parts. That will keep them steady and stop them wobbling which can add unwanted rotation. Rotate the probe core 90 degrees so you’re pitching rather than yawing, it might make it more intuitive. If that doesn’t help, try using the mod GravityTurn to fly your launches for you; you might learn from it and it’s usually more efficient than trying to do it by hand. That science junior could cook on re-entry followed by the rest of the probe, stick an experiment return unit onto the probe core and use that to collect the science experiments before re-entry, then dump the dud science parts and you have a much smaller and lighter re-entry section. I would stick the ERU on top of the probe core with the parachute on top of that so that even if the probe gets cooked on re-entry the ERU will survive with the science inside it.

In the simplest terms possible, delta-V is a measure of how much your rocket can accelerate. If you take a rocket with 1000m/s of delta-V and put it in orbit of Kerbin so that the orbital velocity is 2400m/s, then fire the engines to accelerate in the same direction that you’re orbiting (prograde) until the fuel runs out, you’ll end up going at 3400m/s; conversely if you fire the engines to slow down your orbit (retrograde) you’ll slow down to 1400m/s- and then fall out of orbit. Gravity is constantly trying to drag your spaceship back down to the ground, but when it’s in a circular orbit the acceleration by gravity (9.81metres per second, per second or 9.81m/s2) is cancelled out by the fact that the object you’re orbiting is spherical (more or less) so as you ‘fall’ towards it, it’s constantly curving away from you. Decrease your speed and the acceleration from gravity (m/s2) has more seconds to pull the rocket down meaning that it gains speed (m/s) towards the surface, losing altitude but gaining orbital velocity; increase orbital speed and the opposite happens- gravity has less time to drag you down compared to the surface’s curve so you gain altitude but lose velocity. A rocket in orbit is going fastest at periapsis and slowest at apoapsis so while it’s best to make plane change burns at apoapsis- because the velocity you’re putting in is a bigger fraction of what’s already there- it’s better to do transfer burns at periapsis because the rocket has maximum velocity already and so you need to add less to reach the required speed to get where you’re going. Don’t worry too much if you don’t understand everything, this is rocket science after all!

Crewed rocket to the Mun and back went perfectly, then at the last possible moment the chute failed to open properly and poor Jeb got dunked in the ocean at 130m/s. Bah... I'll try that again after the probe attempt. Here's the album from my first attempt: https://imgur.com/a/nrhl3wY (I'm guessing Mun/Minmus don't count for the planting a flag points?) Points total: 15 (KSC) + 50 (LKO) + 35 (Mun SOI) + 20 (Mun orbit) + 80 (mun landing with crew) = 200 points. It would have been 240 if not for that pesky parachute not opening Edit- do you get points for landing probes on Mun/Minmus or does it have to be a Kerbal? Probe mission is looking promising but it's going to have to wait until tomorrow before I can do it properly. I'm thinking of adding a single part from a mod- a very small reaction wheel- would that be allowed?

How about this then: separate probes, launched on the same rocket, that then travel on to Mun and Minmus individually. Do I get the points for both Mun and Minmus orbits in that case or does it have to be the same craft?

You have A LOT more mods installed than that! Please provide a full list of the mods you're using, without that it's a lot harder to tell what might be happening to cause that wall of exceptions in the logs.

Upload the files to the file sharing site, get the link to that file from the file sharing site, paste the link in this thread. I've added all the mods you've listed into a stock 1.8.1 version of KSP and everything works as expected- I suspect you have a bad version of something but without knowing what versions you have installed it's impossible to say what. If you have CKAN, just delete everything in GameData that isn't Squad or SquadExpansion and add them back in using CKAN, it's a lot easier to keep track of everything that way (BoulderCo is just the EVE configs not a mod in itself). If you don't have CKAN, I suggest you try it out as it makes managing mods so much easier: it deals with dependencies and versions for you, flags updates when they're released and can create new copies of KSP with different mods installed on each one; however not everything is on CKAN and mod maintainers can sometimes put the wrong versions on mods, but that's rare.

A straight up 'stock parts only' would be a lot clearer. What's the status of ISRUs to produce more fuel and will the cost of the rocket be taken into consideration?

Where do I stand with mod engines that use monopropellant and electricity to produce low thrust with extremely high (>1000) ISP; a monopropellant fuel cell; or a pure monopropellant Aerospike? And how about the 3.75m monopropellant tank from Restock+ and switchable fuel tanks that can hold monopropellant among other things? Are solar panels allowed? How about BG motors and rotors? I can see several ways to gain a whole lot of range by using mod parts but I feel like they aren’t really in the spirit of the challenge even if they obey all the (current) rules.

You might want to ask here: Or possibly here:

Try uninstalling and reinstalling OPM, it might work. What exactly isn’t working- the OPM planets don’t appear at all? Have you tried any other planet packs? Normally mods don’t work because you have a missing dependency but CKAN is usually pretty good at getting them all- do you have Kopernicus, ModularFlightIntegrator and OPM folders in your KSP GameData? CKAN can make a list of mods you have installed, can you get that and post it along with the log files Player.log/Player.txt (on windows it’s at C:/users/your username/AppData/LocalLow/Squad/Kerbal Space Program) and KSP.txt from within the KSP directory, it’s a lot easier to debug with the logs. And you’re definitely on 1.8.1?

That's it. I saw something about it in the BetterSRBs mod page but I couldn't find that earlier using a tablet- easy to do on PC using the link in CKAN. Haven't actually used Smart Parts myself so not sure how it works, but it exists.

I tried porting over my 1.8.1 JNSQ setup to 1.9.1 with this Kopernicus, and after deleting SCANsat which spammed exceptions and stopped the save game loading it seemed to be OK. Things didn't look quite right as I was using the wrong versions of EVE and scatterer but the only really weird thing was the disappearing ocean on Laythe, and I've seen that in 1.8.1 too. Terrain looked pixellated when zoomed out a bit further than in 1.8.1 I think. The weird terrain tiling effects were still present though and the hexagonal squiggles made an appearance too, I don't suppose anyone knows why that's happening/how to get rid of it? Trying to change over from 1.7.3 to 1.8.1 was a pain so I'll be sticking to 1.8.1 for now, but aside from some inevitable teething problems it looks OK to me.

You need to do your deorbit burn on the opposite side of the planet to where you want to end up- on Kerbin it’s over the ”Badlands”. The only way to judge these things is by trying it- try a periapsis of 35km over KSC and see where you end up landing, then move it higher if you land too short or lower if you overshoot. You can also change your angle of attack when re-entering to generate more or less drag which will affect where you land as well; a higher angle of attack generates more drag so will slow you down more. You should aim to overshoot slightly as it’s possible to dump excess altitude by making a series of spiral turns before landing, but you can’t get extra altitude if you don’t have enough unless you have engines and fuel to run them.

I completed the deployed seismometer experiments for Mun and Minmus extremely cheaply by bolting a small probe onto other missions (OKTO, Oscar-b, spark) then launching it like a missile just after entering Mun/Minmus SOI. You can also drop transfer stages on collision courses and get some extra utility out of them for free. Are you sure it’s switched on and hasn’t already completed 100%?

There is a 1.9.1 compatible fork of Kopernicus, however it’s not fully tested so if you want to use it back up your saves first! I might try it out this evening and see how it goes,

There is a mod that can auto-stage solid boosters when they burn out, but I can’t remember what is’s called.

I use it for almost everything- I haven’t done a manual transfer mode, docking or surface landing in a long time- but the plane autopilots keep either making violent pitch inputs at much 3 followed by RUD, or face plant on landing. It’s so much easier letting MJ do the boring stuff like a 2 hour long manoeuvre burn or docking six probes to their transfer booster at once, while I do something else and let it run in the background. It’s also great for precision landings when you want to drop stuff like base components in the same place. It’s not perfect though: docking mode does some weird stuff when more than one vessel is docking to the same target at once and I’ve seen it frantically blast all the RCS backwards when the docking port magnets kick in pretty much every time I use it; transfer nodes usually aim straight at the centre of the target and need to be adjusted; and the rendezvous planner has an infuriating habit of trying to do 10+ kmps burns to intercept. Use it as a tool, as much as you like, but don’t become totally reliant on it as when it messes up you need to be able to take control and fix it. (And for the record, I used to do everything manually. Real space programs use computers to do most of their stuff, so why should Kerbals be any different?)

To be fair, Terrapin just doesn't have the same menace to it. I'm still not sure if the big-squid-on-Bop exists in JNSQ, there are some files for something cephalopod-derived in it but no clues to its location. I have a feeling that this next chapter is going to be either a 10 kiloword monster or two smaller chapters (but I haven't quite figured out how to split it), need to include more boring stuff like 'character development' and 'plot' instead of just MOAR ROCKETS!!1! I'm also trying to angle away from the 'Big Four' as basically everyone has put their own spin on them already and the age difference between them and Tina is going to become an issue; however two of them are featuring in this next chapter so that's not going too well . And if the descriptions weren't clear on this, Terrin Space Program is set in the stock Kerbol system- which is ~1/3 scale compared to the JNSQ version that I'm using- plus I can scale down stock part sizes to 2/5 (0.5m instead of 1.25m) which is both more aesthetically pleasing and does a good job of 'game balance' as it makes them slightly overpowered compared to 'real' rockets.

I think you should include terrible jokes in all your updates. Here's one for free: Sheepdog: I got all fifty sheep gathered together in that paddock. Farmer: I only have forty seven sheep! Sheepdog: Yeah, I rounded them up. I might have to try this Kerpollo challenge myself, although I might wait until 1.10 comes along to do it because DECALS!

1) Force complete the contracts in the cheats menu (either alt-F12 or escape > view version info in the pause menu). 2) If the tourists are still there, copy and THEN open the save file (persistent.sfs) and search for KERBAL until you find the tourists, then delete all their information. Note- always back up your save files BEFORE editing them in case something goes wrong.

Emphatically not- the solution posted was to a problem with a far older version of KSP, on an older version of MacOS and not Windows. When the game stops loading at 'loading asset bundle definitions', check the log files- first the KSP.txt log file inside the KSP folder, look at the very bottom of the log for errors or exceptions; and then check C:/Users/your user/AppData/LocalLow/Squad/Kerbal Space Program/Player.txt (or output_log.txt) which has more information in it. Try verifying the source files through Steam: right-click KSP > Properties > Local Files tab > verify integrity of local files. Don't paste the entire log into a post, use a file sharing site instead as it's far easier to look at the files there. You'll also need the proper logs (Player.txt or output_log.txt) as KSP.log has little information in it and yours says nothing about what's causing the problem.

Laythe Plane 2 landed on Laythe, ahead of Laythe Plane 1 , after some excellently judged aerobraking (read: coming in retrograde at 12kps, frantically reloading and changing periapsis until the heat shields didn't rip off and take the wings/engines/tail/most other stuff with them then hacking gravity to 10x to stay inside Laythe's SOI, saving, un-hacking gravity, reloading and suddenly I had a nice orbit with a 55km periapsis and re-entered smoothly ), came down gently to the ocean and- the probe core smashed on splashdown. Cue another reload and a frantic search for some land to land on before finally making it to the surface and staying in one piece. Laythe Plane 1 came in 22 days later and was a piece of cake in comparison- prograde orbit around Jool, used up the transfer stage slowing down before aerobrake 1 captured into orbit, aerobrake 2 captured into the atmosphere, landed. Only the game glitched and the sea was invisible so I had to try and find an island by looking for slightly different coloured terrain lumps and the map view, with the signal dropping out regularly because I have no relays in Jool's system. I'll come back to those two and the other plane I put on Tylo (because JNSQ Tylo has an atmosphere!) in a while when the relays are in place. Also got a cluster of 4 landers into orbit of Bop and despite a chronic lack of signal issue got one to the surface intact. Not sure if JNSQ still has that famous Bop easter egg/anomaly but there's something in the files that suggests it does, I'll have to scout for it. And in all that excitement, I completely missed the important correction burn for my crewed Jool expedition so had to redo the node 40 days later than planned.

I play career mode all the time, only use sandbox for mod debugging and have never even started a science game. Grinding through the early part of the game with limited resources (funds and facilities) at your disposal is part of the challenge and while slapping together a gigantic rocket will do the job just fine in sandbox or even science mode, on a low-budget career it's far more satisfying to do the same at minimal cost and also forces you to be more creative in your design process. Contracts are a bolt-on feature that isn't required in any way and which I only accept to either a) get free Kerbals (my interplanetary ships are big, current one has a crew of 60!) or b) if I'm going there anyway, or possibly c) if I was thinking of going there in future but the contracts made it more worthwhile, like a little while ago when I got three or four Moho contracts so threw some rovers in that direction and scraped up every last bit of science I could get from its surface without sending a Kerbal. Some contracts are stupid (test a Mammoth sub-orbital over Bop!?), some are useful to get hold of tech you haven't unlocked yet (I got one for the NERV and got some use out of it before unlocking the tech tree nodes) but almost all are rubbish because they're procedurally generated and add little or nothing to the 'story' of career mode, or what little of it there is considering it's so open-ended. A funds-less mode in KSP2 is basically science mode, or career-lite, which somewhat cheapens the whole thing (pun semi-intended). While a lot of the later game stuff will be about resource accumulation rather than outright buying stuff and career games lose their funding impetus when you can accumulate tens or hundreds of millions even with the gains turned down to 10% or skipping contracts altogether, I would choose to have funds included every time. KSP without funds would be like NASA or ESA throwing 20 rovers at Mars instead of one- sure you'd get a whole lotta science out of them, but it's not remotely realistic; nor is stapling a hundred of Curiosity/Perseverance's RTGs to the ISS and running it off those instead of the solar panels. Funding adds realism and game balance in a simple and easy way, the one game I've seen actually remove an in-game currency didn't work well at all, and it isn't even the cause of the problem; why would anyone want to remove it?

I wouldn't pay for that DLC, and I bought the two that already exist so it's not because I don't like DLCs, I just don't see the point. FMRS/Stage Recovery can capture dropped boosters and stages already, building a 'reusable' booster is also possible using pure stock components and some effort (there is even a stock rocket and a scenario you can play to do a sort-of reusable booster return flight), and the other stuff just sounds like parts clutter with limited utility. There is already a landing zone east of the KSC that you can use to land your boosters on, or just build an amphibious barge using the stock parts.

A list of mods you're using would be helpful, CKAN can provide them if you go to File > save installed mod list, you'll get a text file with your mods and their versions in it. Upload that and share it here too. Can you also share the log files not in a zipped folder?