Gargamel

It's never the mod loadout [/sarcasm]. I used to know a mechanic who would tape a picture inside the hoods of cars that he could never reproduce the issues they were brought in for. He swore by it. Try that. That's a shame, as it's a pretty good game. Maybe if you had posted up the KSP.log as requested, we could have helped. But, reading your description, and looking at the logs, from one potato farmer to another, it might be your machine.

I couldn't even finish the first couple paragraphs as the page was hurting my eyes. It's hard to take a scientific proposal seriously if it is written in the layout equivalent of comic sans.

With an infinite amount of dV at your disposal, yes this would be possible, but it would just be one long continuous burn to keep the craft in the correct 'orbit'. The center/foci of an orbit is around the barycenter (center of mass) of the body/system. In this case, the barycenter would have to be directly over the pole, and then we get into the issue of what the planet would be doing in response. Sooo.. if you had two binary planets, orbiting each other along their poles, with the barycenter directly between them, you could have a satellite in a stationary polar orbit. But, this scenario is so full of holes (feel free to poke them!), it wouldn't be stable for very long.

I have encountered similar issues with the Near future pack, using both stock and NF radiators. I haven't lost any reactors yet, but it's been close enough I've been worried. My best un-informed guess is that there is a rounding error occuring during timewarp, allowing heat to build up. My cheap and dirty fix is to not timewarp on that vessel, using KAC to schedule when I should return to the vessel. Not always practical, no, but it keeps the reactors from slagging out. I have also set my shutdown temps to lower than normal, so that if an overheat does occur, they will shut down without damage. I'm not sure which reactors you are using, so this may not be an option.

I believe you are quite wrong in this case. @4x4cheesecake is a very helpful and learned poster on this forum, and to discredit them with such a banal response is an insult to everybody on here. This forum is primarily community driven. We have chosen to take our personal time to help others as we can. When we are presented with an issue we do not know the answer to, usually we keep our nose out of the issue. The dev's are under no obligation (I believe) to come here and provide support, yet they still do when needed. If you need dev support in particular, then a bug tracker is usually required, yet I see no bug tracker link. When your install is loaded with mods, there is not much a dev can do anyways. So to try to drop the burden on them is also quite an insult.

Chutes and heat shields will make life drastically better. You can lose the fuel required for a powered descent and replace it with usable payload. You'll burn, what, 3-4k dv on just the descent alone? Don't fight the laws of physics, utilize them. Our rovers seem to be about the same size, give or take, and that's why I went with the smaller wheels, to keep them nicely tucked inside the heat shield.

Also, check to make sure your engines are all pointing in the correct direction. Turn on the Center Of Thrust and Center Of Mass indicators in the VAB, and make sure the CoT is pointing straight through the CoM. If it's not, one (or more) of your engines are pointing a bit wonky, or they are not balanced radially correctly. And as Cubinator said, if you have radial boosters, they might line up nicely in the VAB, but wobble under thrust, so strut them up.

No, they seem to have kept the the most stable version of each major release available for download. Which is very nice as some major mods are 'stuck' in older versions.

You can put an inflatable heatshield on the nose, and re-enter prograde. But your mission specs are similar to what I did. I built a rover base with ISRU in place to meet up with the unmanned lander, refuel it, and then allow the crew to return to orbit. Now I used the inflatable heatshields on the top and bottom of the lander and the rover, as I found the stability goes to hell with only a heatshield on the bottom. Ignore the burnt off wheels, this was an early test, and I hadn't fully worked out the stability yet. But for your lander, You could put an inflatable shield on the bottom of the craft, and add some radially mounted engines that serve as orbital maneuvering engines. when you jettison the heatshield, you can then also jettison the radial engines and use the main engine for landing. The radial engines should have a better vac ISP than your main engine, which should offset the extra mass of the radial ones.

Given the thickness of the atmosphere, I think I spent the least amount of time in this speed range. It was either way faster, or way slower. 1 km/s was a transition point for me, after the heatshields did their braking, and before the chutes would open up. It was the point where I would stop worrying about burning up and start worrying about slamming into the ground. Once you you dip low enough in the atmosphere, you'll soon realize you are doing 200 m/s while still really high above the ground, and it will be a while before you land. MechJeb is horrible at doing atmospheric re-entries. I get the feeling you are trying to do a completely powered descent. Why? The atmo on Eve is so thick it's practically liquid. Use parachutes. My 250t lander only needed a handful of chutes to land. If you are trying to do a powered landing, that means more weight in fuel. A chute would save you the fuel and possibly engine mass if it slows you down enough. If you save mass on the landing stage, you can save mass on the transfer stage, and so forth. Holy burn up batman, flatten out your angle some then. As mentioned, MJ is not good at atmo landings. It will correct for a missed target on an atmosphericless body, but it fails miserably if it encounters air. If you need 'pin point' landings, get the trajectories mod, set up a manuever node so you can get a precise landing, burn the node, and profit. Use heatshields to slow you down to <1km/s, then pop the chutes when safe. This might entail waiting till you are really close to the ground, as I have found (on my heavier designs), that the full size chutes will safely deploy at height, but will get ripped off as the atmosphere gets thicker. I had to wait till 1km AGL to pop the big chutes. But even drogue chutes make your descent slow enough to make this easy to do.

And which one is it?

I don't think I've ever encountered these issues, let alone even thought that hard about them. I just reorient the camera, align the kerbal, and fly. And If I don't reorient the camera, I just remain aware of how each axis of thrust will affect me. Small gentle thrusts. Don't fight it. Be the kerbal, fly the kerbal.

Need to set team A vs Team B on the BD module.

It sounds like you are making this a lot harder than it needs to be. If you want to specifically play with this mod (i'm not familiar with it, but then again, there's a lot of mods out there), then go to the mod's forum thread, figure out what the latest stable version of KSP it supports, install that KSP. Then down load the mod. Install the mod folder into [KSP Directory]/Gamedata. It should be a self contained folder that drops nicely into the Gamedata directory, not a bunch of loose files. I don't know who this hellblazer is, nor why they insist on using a version of KSP that's 2+ years out of date, but I'd suspect that it's because their videos are that old, and you are following steps that are no longer current.

Not sure what you are asking, there is already a full network of dishes scattered around the planet at a variety of locations. The option to use them is in the settings menu. With the network of dishes enabled, yes, you can skip putting up a cloud of communication satellites.

This was unclear if you have had this issue with stock. So after a clean stock install, does the issue persist?

My initial gut reaction would be to make sure you video drivers are updated and current. Did you install any mods and then start noticing it? Remove those. Does it happen in a stock game?

That was kinda of the original intent of the game. They wanted a game that would force you to try , fail, and try again, until you got it to work. They didn't care how, and that's how the idea of a very kerbal design came about. If you are going upwards too fast that you burn up, slow down. If you are going straight up, and then coming straight down too fast, try launching at an angle so that you will spend more time in the thicker air to help slow you down. This game isn't intended to be easy. That would make it dull and boring, and nobody want's that type of game. The game makes you think about different ways to do things, especially when the first attempt fails spectacularly. I think I spent a solid 4 days and 50 attempts to get my Eve Lander to land and take off, just in a testing phase before evening launching the real thing. I had to actually create a checklist so I could remember the settings and steps I needed to do. A simple stupid game would not be fun at all. The fun comes from the difficulty, and the feeling of success you get at having accomplished a goal.

I'll agree it's a little counter intuitive, at first. But with just a little practice, controlling a flying Kerbal on EVA becomes quite natural. Just don't fight with them, and make small adjustments.

Once you get airborne though, you'll find you are going to run into a host of other problems though. If your thrust isn't perfectly balanced through the COM, then you're going wobble and flip over. If you build the the plane perfectly balanced with full tanks, then when you come back for a vertical landing, your COM will probably have shifted enough, even slightly, to make your vertical thrust turn your plane into a pinwheel again. Transitioning to level flight from a hover and back can be tricky too. It will take a little practice to get it right.

The majority of those were built way back in the alpha/betas and have only received minor updates. They're a good place to look at how to build something that does kinda work, but inspires you to do do better.

Ah... well, rule number one of the KSP direct download is to never delete older zips until you're sure you'll never want them again. I only see the options to get 1.4.5, 1.3.1, and 1.2.1 and older. Just going to have to wait till the mod comes current to 1.4.5 probably.

Dark man.... so dark....

From what service? Steam, store, etc?

OK, not everytime. But the vast majority of the time. Anything aero related, I'll go with NASA until proven otherwise.