veryinky

Haven't noticed any major bugs in the 1.0.1 version, seems to be working fine. Loving the new Orbital Period millisecond level precision, very useful for placing constellations of satellites in exact orbits ; 5 millisecond or less margin of error, 0.000 inclination & eccentricity and the orbits match up perfectly as a single circle.

Same way you're detecting for the solid booster achievements, 50% or more thrust provided by Basic Jet, Turbofan or RAPIER + >2 vehicle lift = Spaceplane. Side note, will you use the vanilla KSP toolbar?

Could you also make it so they follow the stock contracts checking to see the player has reached orbit of the planet/moon before giving contracts to send a station part there? Like the player doesn't get contracts for stuff in Kerbin's SOI until they've sent something into orbit. No "test part in in escape trajectory of the Mun" contracts until the player has sent something to the MUn. The basic infinite duration research contracts (orbit kerbin, land on mun, land on minmus...) seem to be the key to unlocking future contract options.

I'm also getting missions to place stations around Jool, even though I haven't been to the Mun yet. Also 11 of 15 contracts are station related, seems a bit much.

The missions I miss the most in .24 are MCE's satellite missions. I loved placing satellites in orbit, especially geostationary ones. Remotetech 2 and SCANsat missions would be my suggestion. That and EVA missions to anomalies, should be a fun challenge to land near one.

Since the centrifuge is called "Small Centrifugium", will there be a large one?

I've set it to 100,000 a while ago and haven't noticed that.

Makes it difficult to figure out what rewards to give for my commercial mission pack. I can get 2 hitchhiker cans and a 1 kerbal crew pod into a 125km circular orbit and back to KSC with a ship that cost 42,000 in 0.9. Probably will need some people to play test these missions to get a good sample size.

I think you're using a design that's overkill for the mission profile; get 100kg of mass up 70,000m, not orbit or anything. LV-909 + FL-T200, octo-core, 3 antenna, 1 z-100 battery, 4 sensors, small parachute. Does the job very easily and the entire craft is re-usable. The next mission can be done by putting the first ship, adding 2 flat panel solars, and either 4 round tordial tanks or strapping the thing on top of a small booster. Either sollution is about 13k under .9 and probably a lot cheaper in .10. What are you trying to launch that requires a LV-T45? Made an even cheaper one. 3306 in 0.9, used a FL-T100 and 2 radial rocko 24-77

Isn't there a turn costs on/off button in the configuration menu? It still lists the vehicle price.

Personally, I like the new price scheme since it rewards re-usable spacecraft. I would increase the mission rewards to match the new costs though.

I was writing commercial missions, namely setup geostationary com network, weather satellites, GPS then hit a snag with the GPS satellite network as there's no way to require a specific MNA. 3h:00m:45s to 3h:00m:55s, 0.0 to 0.002ecc, inclination of 54.75 to 55.25, lan of +/- .5 of 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 320, MNA of +/- 0.05 0, 1.571, 3.14159, 4.712 It's 24 GPS missions. I've already written 6 geostationary comsat using that new repeatingsamevessel parameter. Also weather satellites is getting a structural fuselage (sat body), 4 sensors, 200 electricity and a Communotron 88-88 (sat dish) into a random orbit. I'm testing repeating "commercial passenger" missions, which are brining 2 hitchhiker cans into suborbital/orbit/orbit around the mun/orbit around minmus, then land on kerbin, with a huge (100k) bonus for landing at KSC. Not sure if they're fun though. Also two missions which either require bringing one or 3 kerbals into orbit, docking with something (presumably a space station) at 600km, then landing with the same number of kerbals. Simulating a shift change/resupply.

Try a LV-45, rocko 16, octocore, 2 radial parachutes and a small decoupler as a re-usable launch vehicle. With a 1.25 to 1.5 ton payload it gets a dV of 3800-4100 dV which is enough to put it on a nice suborbital trajectory. Detach the payload (activating the parachutes), have the payload burn until it reaches a stable orbit, then switch back to the launcher to watch it land so you can recycle it. The chutes slow it down enough that it can land on the engine unharmed.

I just tried my Sputnick I-III probe design with 4983 dV, LV-909 engine with FT-200 & 400 fuel tanks, flat octo core, 3 antenna, 4 sensors, small parachute (and a remotetech antenna which isn't necessary to a stock design) it costs 11664 to launch and recycles for 8521. Looks like to be profitable re-usable launchers are a must.

The new engine costs would be fine if the mission rewards were increased to match. I think it should be 2-3 times what a very well designed ship would cost. To account for failed launches and attempts to get the concept of the mission right. As a side note, the Kerbal X (Stock) costs 422,215 now, granted it takes 3 kerbals to the Mun though not enough for a return trip. A slightly modified version I made gets the Kerbal X (title screen) lander to the Mun and lands at KSC for 468,390 it cost about 260,000 before. Tempted to make a mission for it; get a Mk1-2 pod, XL-shute, rocko decoupler, rocko-16, 3 large landing struts, poodle engine, long ladder and 3 ladder rung units (or simply the stock Kerbal X lander) to the mun and land back at KSC. Wonder what'd be a good reward for that? 800,000? Maybe 200,000 reward for landing at a specific spot on the mun like the Niel Armstrong memorial or at the UFO crash site.

Cool, make some missions to try it out.

Well, whoever the client is for that particular geostationary satellite isn't going to want it in a different location a year later. It would mean all their customers would have to point their dishes at a different place in the sky every year. Making a static mission pack would be easy, though I'd like a third option between the choice of repeatable and nonrepeatable; non-repeatable if there's already clientControlled ship on that mission. The reason being that if the static missions were non repeatable then there would be no station keeping maintenance at the end of the year. If the mission is set to repeatable then the player could put dozens of satellites at a specific position in the sky ignoring the rest. So if you could add a mission field which prevents the player from taking a mission if there's already a clientControlled ship on that mission I'd be more than willing to write up a set of Geostationary, SemiSynchronous, and GPS themed missions. Right now I'm testing a mission pack where the player has to land next to anomalies (or simply interesting places on planets like the plateau on Eve or the holes of Moho)

I question why they would want the satellite moved to a new random location once a year, geostationary satellites are to stay in one spot in the sky. I'd like to propose an alternative, which would reward the player for getting the orbital period of the geosat as close to 6:00:00 and eccentricity as close to 0 as possible. Namely that geosat longitudes wouldn't be randomly generated every time the mission is selected but instead is chosen by going down a list, checking to see if there's already a satellite in that position. Like, the first Comsat VI mission would be for 30 (29.75 to 30.25 longitude) then the next ones would be for 60, 90, 120, 150 180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 and 0. Once all the slots are filled up there wouldn't be any more ComsatVI missions. Now if the satellites were placed /perfectly/ then when the year was up they'd still be in position to renew the contract. But if they were more than .3 seconds off the satellite would have moved out of position over the year and would require the player to move it back into position to renew the contract. Lists of positions could also be used to create GPS constallation missions. Semi-synchronous satellites at a 55 degree inclination spaced at 60 degrees in their orbits. 24 slots for satellites that'd need to be maintained once a year if they weren't placed into perfect orbits.

Are you sure? Fuel costs in the latest version aren't much compared to the vehicle. I've got a reusable vehicle that sends a 1.5 ton probe into near orbit (3900dV), fuel costs are under 2100k out of the 15400 of the launcher and I recycle it for 6000ish k$ when it usually lands on the continent east of KSC. It's pretty simple too, lv-45 under a rocko-16, flat octo probe core, z-100 battery and 2 radial parachutes. Get the probe into a circular orbit, switch back to the launcher and watch it land on it's engine. Switch to the probe and complete the mission. Would be nice to get the full cost back for a vehicle if it lands at KSC itself.

I don't think it's a problem as I think of them as service contracts. I launch them under Contract VI for the 100,000k$ then when the year is up I recontract them for 55,000k$ under Contract III. Have to pay for launches that aren't part of the mission list somehow. For example; my 100 ton lifter (2.5 orange tanks) costs 600,000 k$ while the 300 ton space station I'm sending to Duna orbit will cost is 2.7 million to launch. My deep space exploration ship "Von Braun" (crew of 5 to 9, with ioncross crew support supplies for 10 years) cost me 1.5 million to launch and I plan on launching 3 more of these to explore the entire solar system. My Laythe colonization project (which will include a large orbital fuel depot) will might run into the tens of millions.

I liked the "for the prestige" missions though I ended up making a 3 part (later turned into 2 part) station linked with the 2.5m docking clamps instead of 5 parts linked with the regular dock-o-trons as the mission goals implied, I just undocked and re-docked what was in orbit to complete the mission. Personally, I'd request missions to Jool. Especially something along the lines of setting up a fuel depot/orbital station to help with exploring Jool's moons, x amount of fuel, monopropellant, a few hitchhiker cans along with a landercan/cupola for command center. Something to consider might be missions to investigate specific anomalies, a further complexity to rover missions. Land, drive rover to the exact longitude/latitude, eva for an hour, return. Maybe "research labs" made up of a lander can, hitchhiker can, cupola landed at the exact lon/lat of an anomaly. Here's what that space station looked like when I completed that prestige mission by the way.

I like that much of my space program is funded by maintaining a constellation of commercial geostationary satellites. I've got 23 in orbit and every year once their contract is up I can re-mission them for 100k each. Makes for a nice stable source of income. They're all functional as com sats too since they're equipped with at least a sat dish and antenna along with some kind of power supply. Earlier there was discussion about comsat parts, maybe ask the guys doing remotetech persmission to redistribute their sat dishes and antenna parts?

An example of this would be the NT mission pack who's "commercial comsat" missions require 4 antenna and 1 dish while the "lander probe" missions require the com parts and one of each sensor. Considerably heavier than just an octo-core.

I've put up 6 satellites with Contract Mission III so it's not impossible, though I use RemoteTech mod gives me a lot of practice placing satellites in geostationary to create a useful com network. I would like it if missions had additional part requirements though, especially the com network ones. Like a dish an a couple antennas to make something that'd look like a comsat. Personally I did change Mission VI, increasing it's payment to 200,000 since it's more difficult than III. I also made the desired longitude random with: minLongitude = RANDOM(-179, 179.4) maxLongitude = ADD(minLongitude, 0.5) Since the mission repeats and as it was asking for every satellite to be placed at the same longitude.