jimmymcgoochie

Do you have control of the vessel (powered, signal to the ground, avionics can handle the vessel mass)? Did you put the right propellants in the right type of tanks- unless you’re using a gas like nitrogen or helium, most RCS propellants need a pressurant such as nitrogen or helium as well as the ‘real’ propellant, and all RCS options require high pressure tanks which can be selected for conventional (separate) and integral (isogrid) structure tanks and are standard for all service module tanks.

1- How exactly do you plan to get quadrillions of tons of water into the middle of the Sahara desert? 2- Fake sea-ice will still melt; if using fresh water it’ll create a cold layer at the top of the ocean that can cause all sorts of problems, while pikrete would need huge quantities of wood and would then dump that wood into the ocean and any ice-making system would require huge quantities of power. 3- Just drop nukes on volcanoes to make them erupt, you’ll get vastly more atmospheric aerosols than you’ll ever get from contrails. 4- Mmm, giant algal blooms spewing toxins everywhere, deoxygenating the ocean and killing all the marine life (and plenty of terrestrial life too if it washed up on a coastline). 5- Steel making is a huge source of carbon emissions, plus who’s going to make that much steel just to throw it into the sea? And where is the power coming from? 6- Trees. Two things that we know will reduce global temperatures: volcanic eruptions and large numbers of nuclear explosions. Drop some nukes into semi-active volcanoes and set them off to trigger huge eruptions and cool the planet by sheer brute force; Krakatoa cooled the entire Earth by about a degree for a few years and there are thousands of old nukes lying around and plenty of remote volcanoes not erupting enough…

I should have posted this link earlier.

The only way to avoid this is to move the part into position without symmetry enabled, then set the symmetry there. If you hover over a part at e.g. 4x symmetry, the game will detect that the prospective parent part is at 4x symmetry and switch to match that since it can’t suddenly start attaching stuff in, say, 6x symmetry.

Longitude of Ascending Node is the point at which the orbit crosses the equator heading north. Argument of Periapsis is how far around the orbit the periapsis is from the LAN; 0 means the periapsis is on the LAN, a value between 0 and 180 means the apoapsis is below the equator and between 180 and 360 means the apoapsis is above the equator. For contracts, the target orbit line should be visible on the map which makes it easier to aim at it; there’s a bit of wiggle room on the exact numbers too. Can you screenshot the contract window to show what items on the list are ticked or not? Make sure you’re going in the right direction, have all the required extra components (power, antenna, docking port, science experiments and/or survey scanners depending on the contract’s specifics) and if you meet the parameters then the orbit line on the map should disappear.

Screenshots please? To my knowledge, SVE is pretty old and if you’re using newer versions of things like EVE and scatterer (and KSP) then try a different visual pack like Spectra or AVP instead?

Download ProbesPlus master branch from the GitHub (link on the forum page or via CKAN) and not the release which is very out of date. If that doesn’t work, post logs please: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/83212-how-to-get-support-read-first/

Try deleting the settings.cfg file inside the KSP folder, then it’ll recreate it with the default settings after reloading the game which may fix the problem but will also undo any changes you’ve made to the settings ever.

Something like VASIMR or a similar electromagnet-based ion/plasma thruster is a good bet: high ISP gives lots of delta-V, they can use the relatively plentiful (on Earth at least) argon for propellant and low thrust doesn’t matter over interplanetary distances, hence the use of ion thrusters on a number of spacecraft including BepiColombo and Dawn. Using a nuclear reactor for power is a given for a crewed ship using such a propulsion system- a fission reactor now, but possibly fusion in the future which would probably benefit from any improvements in electromagnetic technologies gained by developing the propulsion system, and/or vice-versa. Nuclear thermal propulsion is the higher thrust option, trading an order of magnitude of ISP for several orders of magnitude of thrust, however that also introduces the problem of hydrogen boil-off which would need to be actively managed, as well as needing very large fuel tanks to hold all the hydrogen needed for an interplanetary voyage. An NTR with a secondary loop to generate power when not producing thrust and possibly a lox afterburner would IMO be the best option if such a mission was to be launched within a decade from now, since NTRs have been tested since the 70s and liquid hydrogen infrastructure is relatively widespread in rocketry. A fusion thermal rocket would boost the ISP considerably, though this would probably require very large quantities of deuterium rather than ordinary hydrogen and so would be much more expensive. Hydrolox chemical rockets are another option, trading even more ISP for lower mass, smaller fuel tanks and greater versatility, plus there’s extra oxygen available for the crew and to pressurise the ship. The delta-V margins are going to get very thin indeed and will probably involve a lot of staging and fuel tanks or boosters being scattered in its’ wake, but a mission to Mars or Venus is possible on chemical propulsion (or so my experiences with RO and RP-1 would suggest) and going further afield could be done if ISRU refuelling became practical. Methalox would have even slimmer margins and would be harder to refuel anywhere other than Mars, but also has less of a problem with boiloff.

Colin Chapman’s maxim is as relevant to spacecraft as it is to sports cars, arguably even more so. Besides, ol’ Musky lobbed his car at Mars so there’s precedent Edit: oh dear… you did exactly the opposite of what I said and now it’s more complicated, heavier and still misconfigured for Moho: atmosphere analysis experiment, deployed weather analyser, unnecessary solar panels (ironically I typed that before it sat in orbit for many days without power) but still potentially short of delta-V to even make orbit of Moho, never mind land and return.

Why bother with a slope at all? Just make the ramp perfectly flat, ignore the curvature of the planet and just drive up it into space. Space elevators are SSTO when you think about it, plus they don’t need propulsion systems powered by little children’s birthday cake candle wishes or bulldozing a straight line across an entire continent to make them happen. A shipping container going from A to B might need a truck to take it from A to a train to take it to a ship to take it to another train to take it to another truck to take it to B; the container ship doesn’t do the whole journey, so why should space cargo be any different? Specialisation brings efficiency: the deep space vessel can be optimised for that role, the means of transporting cargo to/from the surface of a planet can be optimised for that role (cough space elevator cough) and there’s no need for a spaceship, probably built in space, to ever not be in space.

You vastly underestimate the delta-V needed to get to Moho- and back again. Simplify, then add lightness.

Dyson Sphere Program. It looks much better than Factorio IMO and has a much greater focus on space travel, building on different planets with differing resources and building gigantic megastructures in space. Also no evil cockroaches trying to destroy everything and a great soundtrack that I added to KSP with the Soundtrack Editor mod.

Just FYI, the stock delta-V system was completely disabled in a recent version of RO since it doesn't work well for most of the propellant combinations used by RO. Next Small Step is a great series and one of the main reasons why I started playing RO/RP-1 after initially trying and hating it some time before, but it's a couple of years old now and uses outdated versions of most of the key mods as well as much older versions of KSP.

First, save the game so you have a backup to return to when/if you find the cause. Try deleting all the deployed science parts listed at the end of the logs. If that doesn't fix it, remove Waterfall; if that doesn't fix it, remove TU and so on until the game doesn't crash any more. It may take a while to get to the root cause of the problem, or there might be something else going wrong earlier on that isn't in the short section of logging that you've posted (moar logs please?). Alternatively, try creating a fresh new copy of KSP and install all the same mods in that new copy (preferably via CKAN) and load up the same save there.

The tutorials are a bit broken since some parts got updated (and the older versions hidden from the parts list) but the tutorials did not, but the mod above will fix that problem. Alternatively, if you click the arrow in the top left of the editor screen, scroll down to sort by size and pick 1.25m it should show the old version of the Swivel engine that the tutorial is looking for.

Try purchasing the tank upgrade in R&D and then building the rocket. Just finishing the research isn't enough, you have to buy the parts/upgrades in order to use them. I think being able to select any material for each tank type is an intended feature to allow testing/prototyping with upgraded tanks before you research them, similar to how engines and avionics can be assigned configs you haven't unlocked yet, though it may be a bit confusing at first when it gives you all the options and you can only use one of them.

New astronauts! They'll take almost a year to get trained up for the Gemini capsule before they can do any missions, which should allow the four existing astronauts to retrain on something new like the Apollo or D-2 capsules. Gemini is OK, but the limited delta-V in the service module is a pretty big limiting factor. With a capable 1500-ton launch rocket now available, why launch a lunar lander and lunar Gemini separately when they can go together? These tests ran into a few problems: In order for the Gemini capsule to return, it needs that upper stage, but there's no way for it to reattach to the upper stage once the lander is gone. Cue a dubious retrofit to add docking ports on the front of the upper stage and the bottom of the Gemini service module. A quick abort test... ...and Yellow Marimba is good to go. Lunar orbit and landing contracts are waiting. Meanwhile, over at Mars: Blue Guitar 2's primary prober completes a successful orbital capture at Deimos with a mildly ridiculous amount of fuel left over thanks to the efficient transfer. Orbital velocity is 3m/s here. Three. Blue Guitar 2 itself came back down to its periapsis a few days later and used up its remaining fuel to try and circularise. Background boiloff has cost it a considerable amount of delta-V even with MLI and radiators to keep that hydrogen cold, but there's just enough to reach a low and nearly circular orbit. The relatively low inclination won't cover much of the planet for scanning purposes, but it's enough to get things started. Now out of fuel, the only way to try and adjust the slightly lopsided orbit was to decouple the landers, but due to some possible part clipping issues this resulted in both the lander and the main craft spinning wildly as the lander hurtled away at considerable speed. The first lander performed a deorbit burn in the dark to land on the daylit side, dropping short of Olympus Mons to try and get some atmosphere for the parachutes to use. The probe landed at a relatively gentle 6m/s and- bounced, flipped and tumbled downhill, breaking one of the solar panels in the process. It also ended up underneath the rendered terrain, but still on top of the 'real' terrain. Three solar panels are enough to power everything even with the science experiments running and data transmitting, though the latter depends on Blue Guitar 2 being overhead as the probe only has a small transmitter and the only other probe currently in orbit, Green Banana Mars, has no way of connecting to the lander. With one successful Mars landing done, the second lander was decoupled and sent on its way. Unfortunately, the decoupling force was enough to drop its periapsis below the surface and on the night side to boot. The rate of descent was too fast to allow sufficient aerobraking, the parachute deployed but broke from the strain and the lander hit the ground at over 600m/s. That contract money was enough to pay for a tracking station upgrade, which I think installs the X-band receivers? Either way, better signals back to Earth are always good. And finally, another geostationary contract sat launch netted some additional funds. Coming soon: I'll be away for a while, but when I return there's a second Mars mission with two more landers to try and land, transfer windows to Mercury, Jupiter and Ceres in quick succession and a lunar base and station to design.

I've switched over from Spectra to AVP due to some weird graphics issues at Eve with Spectra. The skybox may look different in some images as a result, but it also means I can see the surface of Eve through the clouds which should make avoiding the oceans a little bit easier. Goodbye Dres... (eventually) And hello Eve! Another very long burn later and something resembling an orbit is established. There's a close encounter with Ike near the apoapsis, might as well use it. Ike seems lumpier than I remember... A bit more logistical shuffling around to free up the lander before Gerdorf could head to the surface. Flag number 3 planted. A few hours of waiting for the orbits to align again and Gerdorf is ready to leave just as Temerity crosses the horizon. An efficient and well-timed ascent resulted in a quick and easy rendezvous and docking. In the dark, as is right and proper. Rather than sending the entire ship down to Eve, I'll probably use one of the Ion Space Tugs to tow the heavy Eve lander down there and then return the ascent stage to Temerity in Ike orbit afterwards. Flag count so far: 3 Next time: Eve landing, the most challenging in terms of raw delta-V and thrust required to pull it off. This may take a few presses of the F9 key...

Either re-root the subassembly so the part you're going to attach it by is the root part, or use the move tool to take each part off the subassembly and stack it back up on top of the main vessel (a tedious and potentially craft-breaking process, not one I recommend unless there's no other option).

The most recent versions of RO are intended to be used in KSP 1.12.3, try using that version instead and see if that helps? If not, post a screenshot in the VAB and/or in flight and your logs please: Which engines specifically aren't showing in the staging menu, or is it all of them?

Phased orbit is a good description, more so than resonant orbit which is the other alternative I can think of.

Warp outside Eeloo’s SOI, course correction, set alarm, do a crewed Moho mission while you’re waiting.

Looney Tunes-style Kerbal-shaped holes in the ground, anyone?

I get a similar error using Parallax in KSP 1.12.3, it’s more of a “this version isn’ officially supported so if it breaks you’re on your own” rather than a “Parallax will crash and your PC will BSOD”. You’ve deleted all the ModuleManagers now but you actually need one- reinstall it through CKAN. I strongly suggest you don’t install mods in the Steam copy of KSP as this frequently leads to mod-related problems if Steam decides to corrupt the mods. It’s much better to copy KSP out of Steam’s control and then mod the new copy instead.