jimmymcgoochie

Verify the files through Steam- right click KSP > Properties > local files > verify integrity of game files. The logs look OK to me, no exceptions thrown, but a few errors for custom flags early in the loading process so I'd take a look at those and consider removing them to see if that fixes things.

If your game isn't loading, we need logs to have any hope of saying why, especially when mods are involved. Did you by any chance put mods into your Steam copy of KSP, which then updated and broke everything?

That's just because KSP 1.11 added a feature to stop Kerbals climbing off the end of a ladder; I don't understand why this was added as it seems to be more of a hindrance than a help. You can disable that in the game settings, or just jetpack up to the hatch instead.

A long title with an empty body won't persuade anyone. WHY do you think this would be a good thing, how would it be beneficial to add this to the game, what about people who don't have more than one screen?

Intersects? Since when has KAC had an alarm to tell you you're about to crash into something?

Unclear what you mean- do you want this feature to be added to KSP2? Or is this happening to you in KSP 1.12?

Well OF COURSE a Kerbal’s head is just full of snacks! That’s one impressive cake. I assume you brought enough to share with everyone?

Antenna strength is measured in metres, mostly in multiples of metres- the earliest antenna can reach just 500km, but the biggest and best can manage 100Gm. You can use more than one antenna to boost your range, however they don’t add up linearly- each additional antenna only adds a certain percentage of its maximum range (I think it’s 75%) and this effect gets more pronounced with every additional antenna (so two 5M dishes together would only have a range of 8.75M, and adding a third would take that to about 11.56M. Diminishing returns can be pretty severe when using many smaller antennae so use a smaller number of more powerful antenna whenever possible. Here’s a handy guide for antenna ranges relative to the stock solar system: There are also some mods that can help calculate antenna ranges while in the VAB/SPH so you’ll know if you can communicate back home. Transmitting data refers specifically to sending back science experiment data. This can be done in two ways- require complete does exactly that, and will abort the transmission if you run out of power, but allow partial will transmit what it can as soon as it has the power to send it. Partial transmissions can be useful when you have (lack of) power generation or storage issues as it allows you to send some data, but a partial transmission doesn’t get the full science reward for that experiment so you’ll need to do it again to get the full credit.

@GuessingEveryDay videos are good too. @TRAPPIST-1E I already answered most of those questions two posts above you, but to be quick: No. Yes. Maybe. Allowing EVA construction would effectively allow the creation of a new craft from pieces of others, which to me is just a chesty way of getting around the two objectives per craft rule. Yes, but be reasonable about it- launching a bunch of No- be creative with your designs and you can complete a relay network without having to launch a single dedicated craft for it. (Hint- put a relay dish on every probe and they’ll count as relays). No- go at your own pace, the race is based on game time not real time. No, but I’ll allow the JX2 antenna for going to Grannus; how you use that is up to you. I’m going to run through my own challenge first to see if it’s possible without any parts mods at all, but if not I’ll keep my options open. Refuelling in orbit is fine, as is using ISRU, but that doesn’t change the two objectives per craft rule.

I've decided on Galileo's Planet Pack with Grannus Expansion for the interstellar bit (if required- GPP has plenty to see on its own!) with Kerbalism's science-only config, however I'm going to just outright ban all parts mods- they're not really necessary at stock scale and using just stock parts ensures a level playing field. This might change for the interstellar part, but I'll have to try it out for myself first. DLCs are acceptable, but the science stuff from Breaking Ground- surface features either scanned by a rover arm or picked up by a Kerbal and deployed science arrays- is not allowed to prevent an unfair advantage. I haven't yet decided if EVA construction is allowed or not, but I'm leaning towards not- however I'll allow EVA experiment kits. I've tested GPP/GEP in 1.11.2 and everything looks like it's OK, but use an earlier version if you like. I'll probably do a dry run just to make sure the objectives I'm setting are actually feasible and that the tech tree can be unlocked at a reasonable speed to avoid boring grindy science missions. I won't be competing directly in the race itself, but I will be playing along both for fun and as a sort of benchmark. A few early ground rules: No reverts or reloads unless there's a serious glitch/game crash/Kraken/something beyond your control. Bad flying is not beyond your control . This competition will be based on game time (Universal Time, starting at Y1, D1, 00:00:00) and not real time. I'm planning on making the scoring system reflect that with more points for doing something quicker, but those points would change if someone comes along later in real time but completes it faster in game time. I reserve the right to give bonus points for particularly impressive feats, or take them away if I detect any rule breaking. There will be a list of objectives, you should complete these in order; there will be a few exceptions to this rule, but they will be clearly marked as such. Maximum two objectives per craft. Example- a probe goes to Iota/Ceti and does a flyby, completing one objective; it then leaves Gael's SOI, completing another objective; if that same probe happens to end up in, say, Tellumo's SOI later it can't get any objectives relating to Tellumo. Think very carefully about which objectives you claim, once it's recorded you can't change your mind. One mission per launch- no stacking multiple probes into a single rocket then sending them off in their own directions once in orbit. That includes relay network objectives, but if you include relay dishes on your first orbiter probes you can get a head start on the relay network. There's also nothing stopping you from adding experiments to your relays to get more science. You can, however, use multiple launches to assemble a single vessel in orbit- this might be necessary for going interstellar or doing long-range crewed interplanetary missions. You must complete one full orbit to claim any orbital objectives, and I want to see proof of that- take a screenshot when you first reach the orbit showing its orbital period, then a second screenshot once that orbital period has passed. Provide screenshots as proof for everything you're claiming- they need to be visible, so make sure anything happening in the dark is still clear; I use Minimum Ambient Lighting for this. Any screenshots provided to prove the completion of an objective should have the game time in them, either by including the UI in the images with the clock set to UT (not MET!) or by using a mod like Historian to add those details in. I'd like to see a screenshot of each mission being launched and another when it completes an objective. If a Kerbal (or Gaelan, as GPP calls them) dies during a mission, that mission is a failure and can't count towards any objectives. This also applies retroactively- burn up on re-entry after returning from another planet and you'll have to make that trip again.

Sounds a lot like Kerbalism to me- high radiation causes parts to wear out and potentially fail, also causes some problems for Kerbals when exposed to radiation, either high doses over short time periods like going through radiation belts or long term low level radiation like you'd get in an interplanetary spacecraft. Kerbalism also models radiation emitted from RTGs, nuclear engines and nuclear reactors and it seems KSP2 might do the same in some way. There's a delicate balance between "radiation will cause stuff to break and harm Kerbals during a two year round trip to Duna" and "radiation will utterly destroy an interstellar ship on a century-long trip to the next solar system" though...

Deployed a reusable Moon lander, which carried two crew down to my Moon base to fix up the deployed science stuff so it had enough power to actually work; also tested a fuel tanker to refuel said reusable Moon lander between Moon landings. One Saturn V equivalent to launch a tanker every three landings is much more economical than sending a new lander every time, especially with an active base on the surface. Speaking of which, I should probably make some kind of resupply probe to keep that base stocked up while it's occupied or it won't last much longer.

It turns out that removing a rated burn time entirely causes a lot of errors, so instead I did the next best thing and increased it to a frankly stupid number: Ten billion seconds should do the trick. With that problem solved, the first attempt at landing was a resounding success with plenty of fuel to spare and only one ignition used, although accuracy wasn't spectacular and it landed about 5km away from the base. A long distance to walk, but that's why I sent a rover! A quick drive in the rover and Brian and Viktoriya headed over to fix up those deployed RTGs, doubling their power output and allowing the rest of the deployed science experiments to be switched on. The deployed communication dish is still switched off as it needs more power to run that too, but a third deployed RTG will be sent up with the second reusable lander later. A quick crewed flight in LEO netted about 350k funds and a few months added to the three veterans' retirement dates: That flight took enough time that my latest creation was ready- a reusable rocket to rake in data units on the NK-15-VM engine that I use extensively, but which now has a proper TestLite config which means engine failures and limited burn times. Due to the size and power of the engine, a suitable large rocket had to be made which meant a truly enormous parachute was needed to bring it down safely at the end of the flight: Plenty of data units were gathered and the rocket landed intact and undamaged. It's back in the VAB being refitted slightly to increase the data units gathered from each flight before flying again, and hopefully several more times after that. Another test flight next, but in a simulation- now that I have reusable Moon landers I need a fuel tanker to carry the necessary fuel to fill them up between landings. It sounds simple, but shipping 40 tons of hypergolic propellants out to the Moon is harder than it sounds! This test flight was a success and rendezvoused with the station with a comfortable fuel margin, however I couldn't dock as there were two Apollo craft already docked to the two compatible docking ports. I've solved this problem using the simplest method possible- add both Apollo docking ports so it can dock to anything! Future designs will use an androgynous docking port such as the APAS or CBM to avoid this issue, but for now putting both ports on the same craft is the best way to do it. Final scores for today: I demolished the 150 and 700 ton launchpads due to a lack of use, leaving the 60t, 350t, two 1500t and an unlimited mass launchpad, of which four are currently in use as two Blue Backgammon visible imaging satellites (improved Grey Kebabs designed for higher orbits), another Yellow Croissant (LEO Apollo) and the second reusable Moon lander (designated Y as it uses a different engine config giving deeper throttling at a slight cost in ISP) all prepare for launch. There are about 10 days left on the timers for the Moon base and Moon station, even if neither contract is detecting their respective craft properly, and once the Moon base contract is done I'll probably send two of the crew back up to orbit while the other two head off to explore a nearby biome with the rover. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/k1nbU0y Coming up next time: More launches and more Moon action.

@SciMannot that this is the right thread for this, but: Consider the real NERVA, which was calculated to produce ~150kN in vacuum with a mass of 10 tons and an ISP of 825 when using liquid hydrogen; the NERV has a better TWR than that even accounting for things being heavier in KSP than in real life. You can send a single mission to every planet and moon in the Kerbol system without refuelling using just NERV engines, though it does take a bit of orbital assembly beforehand and burn times are long- but then again the NERVA was designed to burn for up to 10 hours. The Atlas wasn't "SSTO", it was stage-and-a-half because it dropped the two LR-89 engines half way through the ascent; they may have used a common fuel tank and some shared turbomachinery, but it's almost exactly the same thing as using side-mounted boosters. Either way, not all of the first stage gets to orbit and it has to stage part way through its ascent, so by definition it's not an SSTO. When you're in a solar system where Jool is smaller than Earth and Eeloo's apoapsis is only slightly above Venus' apoapsis, using "realistic" performance numbers makes for stupidly overpowered rockets. KSP was balanced so that if you build something that looked like a real rocket (e.g. an Ariane 5 or a Space Shuttle), it would behave pretty similarly to the real thing in terms of getting into space. It's designed to make rocket design make sense in the smaller Kerbal world, not to exactly match reality.

If I find a new launch site in one save game (e.g. a sandbox game) can I still use it in another save (e.g. a career/science game or another sandbox), or are they unlocked for each save game individually?

Bumping the bottom "stage" to full launch force meant I managed to crack 1000m altitude: I also discovered that the terminal velocity of the top stage with 8x firework launchers is a mere 32m/s- those things are extremely draggy! Last post, I promise! Even faster and higher than before by setting each launcher to two adjacent action groups so I could double button-mash to fire them even faster. Speed- 200m/s, altitude- 1251m.

I had a go at this, threw together a 4 stage design and fired both fireworks and decouplers with action groups. I forgot to set the bottom stage's launchers to 100 launch speed so it took a while to lift off, I can definitely improve this result! Altitude- 841m, speed- 188m/s. The 175m/s is just the speed that Kerbin rotates around its own axis.

The custom flag link isn't there, the word HERE isn't a hyperlink... Pretty sure I've already found all the new anniversary anomalies, but I counted seven?

LANTERN- Lox Augmented Nuclear Thermal Engine with Retractable Nozzle. Best I can do I'm afraid

Next time, aim north up the coast from KSC (And remember to do all the science, including after you land!)

I spent several hours searching for all the new anomalies and launch sites in 1.12; I’m pretty sure I found all the off-Kerbin anomalies and all the launch sites, but there might be some new anomalies on Kerbin that I missed, hidden within the “old” launch sites where SCANsat wouldn’t see them. As soon as I can, I’ll drive around all the launch sites to see what I can find.

Reproduced for a number of engines, bug raised. On an unrelated note- can fireworks be linked to a KAL controller to control their timing? If so, bring on the choreographed firework shows!

I've gone round every planet and moon and I think I've found all the new anomalies, but they seem to start at Anniversary2 and go up from there; there's no 0 or 1. Have I (or SCANsat at least) missed any or is that just how the numbers work?

@Admiral Fluffy @Souptime Funnily enough, I actually wrote a bit about it being "soup time" in the story, but I haven't got that far yet (it would be in 2 chapters' time) and now that you've gone and spoilt the surprise...