jimmymcgoochie

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?

Copy everything inside the mod's GameData folder and paste it into your KSP GameData folder. Also make sure you have all the dependencies installed- those are mods that are needed by other mods for those other mods to work properly- for SSPXr those are: ModuleManager, B9 Part Switch and Near Future Props, they come bundled with the download but make sure they're the right version for your version of KSP. If you're on KSP 1.9.1 then just use the newest versions of each and you should be fine, 1.8.1 should also be OK but anything 1.7.3 or older will need older versions which you need to track down individually.

StageRecovery and FMRS can both catch dropped stages outside of physics range as long as they have either a) enough parachutes to slow their descent (they need not be deployed or even armed, just attached to the stage somewhere) or b) enough fuel to at least simulate a powered landing. I use SR as it’s simple and plays nice with some other mods, and it is configurable to give more or less funds back depending on range from KSC, landing speed and can also be setup to ‘destroy’ stages that were going too fast without sufficient heat shielding. As for doing it by flying your boosters yourself, it’s possible without any mods at all, but a lot more difficult. You almost certainly won’t be doing any Space-X style double landings by yourself, although in KSP2 that might work with multiplayer depending on how it’s set up. It’s also a lot easier (and more realistic) to recover the booster then launch a ‘new’ one than it is to actually try and staple a new payload on top of the booster while it’s still parked in a field somewhere- even SpaceX have to collect the boosters up and give them a good checking over before integrating a new payload.

Yup, it's Moho- considerable orbital eccentricity plus a fairly high inclination plus it's orbiting faster than anything else means it requires the most delta-V to get into orbit even compared with much further targets like Eeloo. Of course, Moho gets the best solar panel power of all the planets, but a Moho day is longer than a Moho year so unless you're at the poles or constantly moving east, you'll still need lots of batteries. Jool requires lots of delta-V to brake straight into orbit, but you can aerobrake in its upper atmosphere to save fuel and/or use gravity assists from its moons to get where you want to go using less fuel. Of course, said moons can also throw you out of the solar system entirely if you get it wrong! Eeloo is far away, but low solar orbit speed and low gravity mean it's generally a lot easier to capture into orbit when you get there. Hardest to actually land on would probably be Tylo. While Eve's high gravity makes for a very high orbital velocity, it has an atmosphere to aerobrake and scrub off speed (with enough heat shields, that is!) whereas Tylo is almost Kerbin-sized, the orbital velocity is only slightly lower but you have to brake to the surface entirely on rocket power so it requires the most delta-V to land on. The hardest to get off of again is Eve, as only a few rocket engines will work at low altitude on Eve due to 4 atmospheres of pressure at sea level, and jets are useless as there's no oxygen in that air. Plus it has the highest surface gravity of any body in the solar system so you need even more thrust out of those engines when they're at their least efficient.

Fairings can be tricky and there are a lot of options for them that aren't immediately intuitive. To actually make a fairing, first place the part (you'll need a decoupler between the fairing and your payload e.g. satellite or the fairing will be stuck to it!). When you place a fairing it will automatically go into construct mode, all you need to do then is move your cursor around to drag the fairing wall into the shape you want and left click to place that section. There are limits to how wide you can make the fairing; I think the maximum radius is the same as the diameter of the part, so a 2.5m fairing can be up to 5m wide. When you want to close the fairing, just narrow it to a point and the 'place section' on screen should change to a blue 'close fairing'. You can also close the fairing by moving it into contact with a part, this can be useful if you're using a launch escape tower or just want the fairing to cover up an aerodynamically ugly section in the middle of your rocket. The two sliders on the fairing control the number of sides and the deploy force. Number of sides is more important with the 'clamshell deploy' mode ON, it simply determines how the fairing splits up when you deploy it. Deploy force should be kept high if you're deploying the fairing in atmosphere and/or at high acceleration as that will 'throw' the pieces away with more force and so reduce the chances of damaging your payload. 'Clamshell deploy' mode is off by default and will make your fairing deploy as solid sections like real fairings do, rather than just shattering into many pieces. It looks better and in some rare cases could help avoid pieces of the fairing damaging the payload, but I don't think the differences are particularly significant. If your payload has protruding parts at a specific symmetry (e.g. 3x), then you can set your fairing to match that symmetry or a multiple of it (either 3 or 6 sides) and line it up appropriately so that the fairing splits away from those protruding parts and reduces the chances of damage. Plus it looks waaaay better, which is more important. 'Interstage nodes' is a useful feature of fairings that lets you effectively stick multiple payloads in a single fairing by providing a column of attachment nodes rising up from the fairing part itself. These are particularly good when you want to deploy a satellite constellation using resonant orbits, haul many small satellites up in one larger rocket or just want a little bit more space between the base of the payload and the fairing part itself (e.g. if the payload is actually wider than the fairing part and a direct attachment would make the fairing ugly/impossible to build). 'Truss structure' is only relevant if you're using the interstage nodes, it will create a scaffold-like structure for each interstage node that has something attached to it. It looks like this in action: Each satellite is attached by its own decoupler and can be deployed one by one, but the whole thing can be launched on one rocket. (taken from here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/164391-not-seeing-any-truss-structures/)

Landed a little QBE-based lander on Laythe. I was originally aiming at Vall but a) I came into Jool’s system retrograde (oops!) and didn’t have 10km/s delta-V to land on Vall and b) by some strange coincidence I got a slingshot from Vall that ended up at Laythe. Some crazy aerobraking later and it splashed down. And down. And down... Until the pressure got too much and it imploded but I got science from Vall and Laythe and some nice achievements for it too. Then I put a plane on Tylo. (Yes, I know that Tylo has no atmosphere- in stock; but in JNSQ it has 0.2 atm of oxygenless air which is just enough to fly with and is also helpfully thin enough that RCS thrusters and rockets operate with only minor penalties to ISP. Now all I need to do is wait a couple of years for the SCAN sats to show up and map the place out so I know where to find that sweet, sweet Science...) 2 more identical planes inbound for Laythe in the next few game ‘weeks’, hopefully those will float

I like the new Poodle better than the current 2-nozzle version, I'm quite happy to have that as the only version but with a compact variant to fit on 1.875m stacks as well- though that would start stepping on the Skiff's toes in a big way.

No. Given how delayed KSP2 already is, why would you want development effort to be diverted? I'll take a fully functioning KSP2 with the advertised features- colonies, multiplayer and interstellar gubbins- over a KSP2 which doesn't have those things working properly and has a half-baked Sol system in it, any day of the year. It's still called KERBAL Space Program.

If your question is ‘why use satellites instead of crewed ships with Kerbals aboard’, the answers are: lower cost, both of the probe (usually) and the propulsion gubbins needed to put it into orbit then fly it to where it’s going; reduced mass, which can help reduce costs and also gives you more delta-V with the same propulsion setup thus giving you more range and bigger margins; communications for future missions, if your satellite has relay dishes and you’re using the CommNet; completing contracts of varying descriptions; and most importantly, a probe can be discarded once it has completed its mission whereas it’s generally frowned upon to do the same when Kerbals are inside the craft. I somehow doubt that the Moon landings would have been as popular if Armstrong and Aldrin had been left on the moon once their mission had been completed, as is the case with the Surveyor landers that went before (and one of which was visited by Apollo 12, fun fact).

Nope. Kerbin et al are going nowhere, the stock planets at stock scale and stock positions are confirmed in KSP2. This was pointed out every other time someone suggested using the Sol system in KSP2, it isn’t happening so either stick with KSP or wait for the mod for KSP2. It’s called KERBAL Space Program after all! The drop out curve in KSP is fierce just trying to launch into Kerbin orbit, never mind landing on the Mun; scaling that up to real life scale would be drastically worse.

Anyone know how to switch off asteroid spawns entirely? I don’t want them but they keep showing up and deleting the config (except for the part that should delete all previous spawn patterns) seems to have made it worse somehow.

If you hit F3 immediately after it explodes, it will tell you exactly what happened.

Which video? There’s no link in your post.

They should be visible in the tracking station but only when you follow a specific craft (the orbits won’t show any changes otherwise) and will show up in map view both when planning a manoeuvre and when you’re just flying. There’s an option in the settings that can change the number of patches (if that’s the right term) and you can turn it up to 6 which is helpful for seeing the results of a series of nodes or travelling through several SOIs e.g. around Jool, but it may also come with a performance cost too so I suggest you keep it at 3 or 4. There’s another option to change the draw mode, experiment with that to find the one you like the most.

Just delete the entire TweakScale folder out of your GameData, everything still works fine and CKAN is none the wiser.

Strange, they run on LH2 for me. Do you have the Kerbal Atomics patches that dynamically change all LF-only engines to liquid hydrogen and/or the patch for the NERV to make it dual mode with LF and LH2? They should be in KerbalAtomics/patches, it might be a separate download on CKAN (KerbalAtomicsNTRmodsupport or something like that). I actually had to modify the nuclear engine from the OctoSat mod to use a tiny amount of electricity to prevent the KA LH2 patch affecting it as the OctoSat fuel tanks can’t handle LH2 and my attempts to make the tanks work just broke them entirely.

A couple of stranded Kerbal rescues, a couple of lost part recoveries, and then I took the Orion drive from Stockish Project Orion, modified the NFElectrical nuclear reprocessor to make Orion pulse units (the method in SPO is too long and requires too many parts for my liking, so I made my own supply chain that only requires ore as an input, turns it into uranium and then turns that into pulse units a.k.a. NUKES!) and put them together to make a test ship and parked it on the Mun to mine some ore and make some pulse units before thinking that maybe it would be a bit faster with some engineers on board... 23K delta-V from the Orion drive isn’t bad though and with 300+ tons of ship to punt around too, I might make a larger ship using it in future. And I put my first satellites around Dres and Edna (I’m using JNSQ, Edna is like a second Dres but with a Gilly-sequel moon) and very nearly overshot Dres due to feeble engines and a less than optimal transfer burn some time ago. And my Duna expedition is finally on its way back home, huzzah! All in all, a pretty productive day.

I think it’s a 4% chance that any asteroid will be ‘magic’, just use the cheat menu to ping a craft beside every asteroid you can find until you find one, although it may take a while (or require some save file editing) to get a set in different colours- I know you can get red, yellow, green, blue and purple at least and it may be an RGB thing and so configurable, if you can figure out how.

I suspect you may have an old version of MechJeb and your game has updated to v1.9.1, try installing the latest version and it might fix the problem. Screenshots would be helpful though, what sort of arrow is it?

If checking the files doesn't work, try this: Make a new save game in KSP (if your original was in career mode, a new career save etc.) - try to use the same settings that you're using in the current, broken save Go into KSP/saves to the folder with the same name as your old, currently broken save (e.g. if you called it Career 1, then it will be the Career 1 folder) Go into the backups folder and copy the most recent backup file (persistent date+time.sfs) Go to KSP/saves and then into the new save's folder (the one you made in step 1 e.g. Career 2) Paste the file you copied in step 3 into this folder In KSP, in the new save, click 'load save' then pick the file you just copy+pasted and see if the game will load it: if it does, problem solved; if not try an earlier backup save from the broken career. If none of those work, you may have to start from the beginning again.

Here's a few things that might help: Struts More struts Even more struts MOAR STRUTS!!!!! Autostruts - specifically from the boosters to the grandparent part, and from the nosecones on top of the boosters to the root part MOOOOAAAAAAR STRUUUUUUUUTS!!!!! Big, heavy boosters attached via a single small connection point will be unstable, to make them more stable you need struts to hold them in place, or you could try the ReCoupler mod which will let you attach them to several radial decouplers which might be a bit more stable. Whatever you're doing, the boosters will decouple away from the rocket's centre of mass so put the decoupler quite high on the core stage and then attach the boosters and move them down to the desired position to make them detach so that the pointy end gets pushed away from the core to avoid unwanted collisions and subsequent unplanned stage separation/explosions/loss of rocket; sepratrons help here too, though for a booster as big as the Clydesdale you might need a few of them per booster to push it away properly.