Der Kosmos

If you are using a life support mod, it might be interesting to have a cycler that was a closed loop habitat to cut down on life support requirements on interplanetary trips.

Is there any way to change the icon view of Kerbals in the Astronaut complex so it represents their replaced texture rather than the default male or female?

Reactors and larger NTRs/Ions. 2m Liquid fuel tanks.

I'd separate jet fuel from Cryogenic fuel. Jets use jet fuel, First stage rocket engines use a mix of jet fuel and oxidizer. NTRs use Cryogenic fuel, and vacuum optimized rocket would use a mixture of cryogenic fuel and oxidizer. Cryogenic fuel tanks would also be less dense, and perhaps require electricity or bleed off propellant if they get too hot.

It would be nice if Tourists ever asked to spend set amounts of time in a space station in orbit. Perhaps with contextual contracts they might ask to visit a specific space station.

I started having this problem after my video card updated it's drivers (Radeon R9 200, 15.11). But the problem ONLY happens when I try to launch it from steam. The new driver software puts a streaming overlay onto the game much like the steam overlay, so if it's overlays that cause this, it might be the two conflicting with each other.

[quote name='Sof']I'm pretty sure the joolian system would rip itself apart if the moons exerted any force between them.[/QUOTE] It's been simulated, Val leaves almost immediately, and Bop a few decades latter. After that the entire Kerbol system is more or less stable. As for the argument that getting orbits changed would be annoying. We already have to take that into account when the Mun's SOI sweeps through the area and kicks your satellites into escape trajectories. It's even ruined rescue missions. Really it's just another factor for experienced players, to take into account. It seems like the kind of people who would have trouble with that are the kind of people who rarely leave the Kerban system anyways. Remember a newbie player is one who hasn't gotten to the Mun and back yet without mods, and the vast majority of players don't go any further than Minmus.

Because you aren't in the same conic. It only shows you trajectory changes for the same SOI.

Would it be safe to remove UKS and install KMS lite as a downgrade? I don't have any bases built yet, but I do have radial supply containers on some of my spacecraft.

Argh. I tried installing serious lasses, and I keep getting female heads on the males (which actually look kinda cute with long hair) and default heads on the females. Did I copy the cfg file wrong? EDIT: I found out what was wrong, the names in the list were capitalized incorrectly. The files were named LassKerb_xy but in the cfg the female heads were listed Lasskerb_xy. It was like this when I downloaded it, did anybody else have this problem?

I'd suggest hiding that button, I didn't mean to press it, but very bad things happened when I did, and I ended up nuking that save.

It seems it's possible to release an inflated Ponderosa from it's muncrete slab. There seems to be no way to re-attatch it, and this angers the kracken. The version I'm using seems very buggy anyways, will updating make it worse? If I deflate everything will I get my rocket parts back?

Any chance of a bi-modal nuclear engine that can function as a power generating reactor when not in use?

Would it be possible to show a landing prediction in the flight view instead of just the map? I ask because while the map view can get you to within a few KM, you basicly have to eyeball it for the final approach. If you want to build a base and don't have wheels, you often end up having to waste a lot of fuel hovering and fine tuning. It would be nice if there was some sort of visual indicator showing exactly where you will land.

Well, it seems that even if it does, it weighs almost twice as much as the stock lab. Again, if the rocket parts cost reflects the enhanced utility of the other configurations, then those configurations should be what requires the most parts, just a basic inflatable version of the science lab should be lighter than a stock science lab because it lacks the structural elements, and is balanced by the fact that you need to set it up.

Sometimes it says 11 other times it says 15 broken either way. Also, will the inflatable science lab count as a research lab when it comes to filling contracts?

Found a bug. There should be enough rocket parts left over to convert the empty boxes into batteries, but it says I need more even though I clearly have enough.

Oh dear, I must have had it misconfigured. Sorry, my mistake. Definitely like the idea of engineers being able to reduce that down to 300.

I have no problem if it's more expensive than a Hitchhiker. I just think a 4 man habitat should not weigh more than a Hitchhiker. I'd suggest cutting the rocket parts down to 600 or even 300. Maybe make the more advanced options more expensive to compensate.

Compact-ness isn't as important as mass or part count, and A Ponderosa is almost as big as a Hitchhiker when you consider it needs Three containers full of rocket parts. Not to mention saddles and mineshafts. As for the reconfiguring aspect, maybe just make the reconiguring more expensive to balance. It definitely shouldn't weigh more than a Hitchiker in any configuration. It ought to be lighter than the Hitchhiker because the Hitchhiker has a lower part count and can be used on a mobile vehicle. The factor balancing Ponderosas is that they are stationary instillation that can only be deployed to a planet's surface. You mention bolting them to the side of the rover, but there's no reason not to just build a rover with a built in hitchhiker, or the Mk2 crew cabin which is even lighter. If it only needed say, 300 or 600 rocket parts, I'd say it would be fair, but as it stands it's way too clunky unless you have an IRSU setup already in place.

This is a nice idea, but what's the advantage of using Ponderosas over Hitchhiker containers? A Ponderosa, three containers full of rocket parts, and a Saddle, all add up to more than a Hitchhiker container. With the Ponderosas you also need to either shove them all in a Conestoga (as large as a hitchhiker and adding a whole tone of mass) or find a way to carry 4 containers, 5 if you want one for mineshafts, saddles, and other goodies. With a hitchiker, you really just need to attach some fuel tanks, engines, landing legs, and a probe core to have an instant habitat. Perhaps reducing the amount of rocket parts required? I might end up just using this mod for the mine-shafts.

Is there a way to activate a thermometer or other piece of science gear from a Kerbal's inventory? It used to be possible to use it while attached to a Kerbal's back.

Will there be any other sort of containers or racks? Perhaps a wedge shaped container with an inline rack like Universal Storage?

An empty tank headed to Gilly can use Aerocapture at Eve. Then once it's full, it can use the Oberth effect to slingshot off of Eve and then Aerocapture at Jool. I haven't run the numbers but as far as ways to save delta-v go, Starting on Gilly and ending on a plant with an atmosphere can't be beat. It looks like a roundabout trip, but it should be the most energy efficient. Moving an empty fuel tank from Kerban to Eve orbit shouldn't be too hard either.

Personally I think Alpha, Beta, and Release are outdated concepts in the age of early access and digital distribution. 1.0 means "we can put this in a box and ship it to people, and they won't complain that it's an unfinished product" However these days, players are just seen as cheaper beta testers, and software is expected to receive a constant supply of patches and updates. We obviously need version numbers, but jumping from .25 to .90 overnight and deciding that one update is 1.0 even though more updates are planned after, is just silly. In the open source/free software community software is developed in a rolling release of "Stable" "Unstable" and "Nightly." Stable is expected to run without any major bugs, but might not have the newest features. Unstable is where new features are tested, it's guaranteed to run, and hopefully won't crash, but bugs are expected, and performance might not be as good. Nightly is the latest files straight from the developer's build servers. If you want to try it, go ahead, but you'll have to compile it yourself, and it might not even run. Stable and Unstable builds often have a different version numbering scheme, while nightly builds might not even have numbers. I'd consider most builds of KSP so far to be unstable builds. Squad has prioritized implementing new features over optimization. This isn't a bad thing, but calling it "Beta" is a bit specious. As is declaring a game to be 1.0 in an update that introduces a large amount of features (which will inevitably introduce new bugs.) This move fast and break things approach would be better served by a rolling release that makes no claims about "finished-ness" or stability.