RexKramer

Stheno, I have noticed this occasionally also, most often when I'm transferring within a fairly large vessel, with a high part count. For me, the problem eventually works itself out. Sometimes double-clicking on the destination capsule works. Other times, I have ended up canceling the transfer, clicking on other parts of the vessel, and then trying the transfer again, usually successfully. I play completely stock, so this is not really a mod related issue. Unfortunately, I am not sure what is causing the problem.

Regarding Kerbal capacity, any container holding Kerbals will meet the requirement. Lander cans, hitchhiker pods, command pods, mobile science labs. The exception is the External Command Seat, that one does not count I believe. So any combination of pods/cans that will hold the required number of Kerbals will suffice. The power requirement actually means you need a means of generating power, such as solar panels, RTGs, or fuel cells. Batteries alone do not meet the requirement. So slap a solar panel on there. If there is a docking port requirement (there usually is..), any of the three sizes of docking ports will work. There is usually an antenna requirement. Any of the available antennas will work. Additional requirements should be self-explanatory.

I just ran up against the LV-N/LV909 issue last night, trying to build an ore recovery vehicle for Ike. In this case, the LV909 provided more DV with the same fuel tanks, but the LV-N still ended up being the better choice. The mission is to start at 200km orbit of Ike, land on Ike, extract 3,000 units of ore, return to a 200km orbit, and dock with an orbiting ore processor. So, I'm bringing to the surface a lander holding two Kerbals, a drill, and two large ore tanks. I wanted plenty of DV to spare, in case I want to make large inclination changes, and because my landings are never anywhere near 100% efficient. With 2160 LF and 3 LV-Ns (and zero oxidizer), I came up with about 3043 DV. Using the same 3 fuel tanks with 2160 LF (plus oxidizer this time) I came up with about 3192 DV using LV909s. Either configuration will complete the mission, and using 909s actually gives a little more DV even though 909s actually make the initial mass much higher due to the mass of oxidizer. The LV-Ns in this case are a much better choice however. This is because when I reach the orbiting ore processor I have much less fuel to manufacture to replace the fuel spent during the flight. With the LV-Ns I burned about 2/3 of my LF, which now needs replaced. With the 909s I also burned about the same amount of LF, plus an even higher mass of oxidizer. So using LV-Ns leaves more ore available, because I end up replacing less total fuel. By the way, using the LFO tanks for LV-Ns isn't really that bad. There is a slight improvement in the fuel to tank mass ratio using dedicated LF only tanks, but it is a very slight improvement. I did calculate DV using LF only tanks, and in that case came up with about 3308 DV, slightly better than using 909s. Unfortunately, the available LF only tanks are very limited, so the ship design gets a little goofy if you go out of your way to select LF only tanks. Anyway, the end of this story is that while LV-Ns and 909s yielded nearly identical DV values, the LV-Ns actually ended up being a much better choice. Each situation will be different, however. I ran the DV calculations because I was also beginning to wonder if LV-Ns still had any value in the game. They do, but they don't have the same advantages they did in 0.90 and earlier. If you want to put a positive spin on the situation, you could consider that the 909 is now one of the best engines in the game, and is available very early in the tech tree. - - - Updated - - - I'd like to point out that the LV-N and LV909 have identical thrust in space. So the engines themselves do not have a difference in burn times. For the same weight, LV-Ns and LV909s are going to have essentially identical burn times. However, the total mass of many ships is going to be higher using 909s, because the extra mass of oxidizer can easily offset the extra mass of the LV-Ns. Plus, there is another penalty using LFO engines like the 909- If you are lifting the whole thing to orbit from the surface of Kerbin, you really pay a penalty to lift the extra mass of oxidizer. Obviously, this is not always the case. For ships which do not require a lot of DV, the weight of oxidizer does not exceed the weight added by switching to LV-Ns. I am personally finding the 909 to be a better choice in many cases in 1.0, but it is so close that there are no simple 'rules of thumb' that always work when comparing them to LV-Ns. In my above example, I found that even for a very short range mission (Ike orbit-Ike surface-back to Ike orbit) the LV-N was the better choice. For a nearly identical mission at Minmus, the 909 was the better choice.

There are a lot of tricks to making docking work with rovers. Unfortunately, none of them has worked reliably for me. So, I solve the problem by mounting a Claw on the mobile rover. No more alignment issues, solves a lot of problems.

I have seen a couple of contracts like that, although obviously have not attempted to lift anything from Eve. I'm pretty sure the game requires the ore to actually have come from Eve. Simply mining some on Eve, and then delivering some other ore to the destination probably won't complete the contract. Part of navigating the contract system is determining which contracts you are actually capable of completing. I was once offered a contract to test a parachute, while flying, altitude 20-25km, speed 400-500m/s. At the Sun. Ok, it was possible to complete, using a lot of cheats, but without cheats that one obviously is not really possible to complete. Personally, I really like the fact that the contract system makes you think before accepting contracts. Lifting ore from Eve would be very challenging to say the least.

There is no penalty for simply declining the contracts. On the other end of the spectrum, there are players who like to build large stations or bases and fill them with Kerbals. With the high cost of hiring Kerbals, the rescue contracts are a good way for those players to collect new hires, and make a little cash in the process. I don't feel too bad about declining rescue contracts. I just assume another agency will pick up the contract.

This is not a bug, but rather intended behavior. The non-shielded solar panels are now not retractable, which is noted on their description in the VAB/SPH. This is probably to further differentiate them from the shielded solar panels, which cost more and weigh a little more. The button to command panel retraction should probably be removed from the pop up menu as well as the action group menu, and I would imagine that will occur in a future update.

Yes, but while you are up there, might as well practice your orbital rendezvous maneuvering. 40km is pretty close. If your orbits are closely matched (nearly identical), burn prograde a little, to make your orbit slightly larger than your target's. Key word is slightly. Be patient while the target catches up to you. When you get within about 2km, you can set the ship as a target even if you haven't upgraded your TS (tracking station). You can do that by double-clicking the vessel once it's within visual range. You can switch to the other ship when you are within 2.5km, by using the [ or ] keys. However, I really recommend getting within 100m, and zeroing your relative velocity before switching to the stranded kerbal, especially if you are new to EVA, and working with the jet pack. Because that's next. As Reddeyfish mentioned, you will need to EVA the stranded kerbal, and maneuver him/her with the jet pack to the rescue ship. EVA controls can be tricky if you haven't done it before. Be patient and go slow. Good luck!

The published drag values became meaningless in 1.0. It looks like they have been removed. The new aero model does not use those drag values in any way.

I had a lower stage slam into me from below a few times. Staged away the lower part so the lander could land normally, but left a little throttle in. At first, the thrust wasn't enough to arrest the descent of the lower stage, so it dropped away. A minute later, it ended up ascending, right into my lander.

Neither of the MK1 cockpits have SAS capability. They either need a pilot, or a probe core with SAS for that function to be available. They both do however have pitch, roll, and yaw torque built in.

This is a known bug, and is being addressed. If you are feeling bold enough to alter your persistent.sfs file, and just can't wait for the update, here's how to temporarily fix it- Locate the ISRU or drill unit on the ship in question in the persistent.sfs file. Change the following values to 1: HeatThrottle = 1 avgHeatThrottle = 1 Note this will only temporarily return the drill or ISRU to functioning again. If you overheat it again, it will be stuck again. Again, this issue is known and is being addressed.

Clicking the parking brake button is the best answer. I also have good results simply retracting the landing gear, which helps the EVA get back in the vessel if I haven't unlocked ladders yet. That also prevents the plane from rolling away I suppose.

Time remaining on a contract can be viewed by clicking on the contract in the contracts building. I would start by checking that, although those contracts normally have very long expiration dates.

Doing science at the poles of Mun or Minmus will also trigger this effect. The fix Arsonide posted above should correct that case also.

In response to the OP, in 0.90 it is absolutely possible. Minmus is easier, but Mun is absolutely doable. My preferred configuration is a fairly normal spaceplane, with a small rocket engine mounted on the belly, as close to the CG as I can get it. 48-7s is the engine I use, usually mounted to a cubic octagonal strut. I use a LVN or sometimes just small rocket engines to get to Mun/Minmus, and descend normally. At about 20 meters above the surface, I stop the descent, and maybe climb slightly. I then deactivate the horizontal rocket(s), activate the belly rocket, and rotate to a horizontal attitude. On Minmus, a single 48-7s on the belly is plenty to land comfortably. On Mun, I usually mount two belly rockets, although you could probably get away with one. This has actually become my preferred method of getting to Minmus. I play completely stock.

Actually, Laythe's atmosphere is thinner than Kerbin's, so parachutes are slightly less effective. However, the surface gravity is also less on Laythe, so if chutes work on Kerbin, they probably will work ok on Laythe also. Even though your lander is not a plane, your jets may be able to help steer you towards land if your trajectory takes you close to land. - - - Updated - - - I generally take SSTOs with wings to Laythe, but here's a strategy which worked before I started doing that: First, this requires a lander which will float upright in water. You don't need wings, but need to be able to launch vertically from water. You'll need an engineer on board also. Enter the atmosphere in a way that you think will get you to land on land. I'm not too good at that, and usually end up in the water, but close to land. Usually you can get within a few hundred km at least. Use parachutes and jet engines if needed to land softly in the water. Repack your chutes. Make sure you have a way for a kerbal to get back aboard the ship if he falls into the water. Or make sure he doesn't fall off.. Assess which direction the nearest land is. Launch, using your jet engines, and head that way. This time, when you pass over your intended landing zone, you are going slower, and at a lower altitude, much easier to hit your target. That's worked pretty well for me.

Couple of suggestions. 1. A plane that size can be flown with a single turbojet engine. The advantage to that is you eliminate asymmetric flameout, you just keep the engine powered up until it stops making thrust. Perhaps try that vessel with a single jet engine and two small rocket engines. 2. Climb profile: The climb profile varies with your ship, but here's what works very well for me, with similar ships. - Climb at 45-55 deg. until 10km altitude. That's 45-55 degrees attitude, although down this low your attitude and prograde vector should be very close. - Between 10km and 20km, gradually lower your pitch. Shoot for about 20 deg pitch. More important is where your prograde vector is, this should be down to about 10 deg above horizon by 20km. 5 degrees above horizon is fine at 20km also. - Above 20km, try to keep your prograde vector about 5 degrees above horizon. This will keep you climbing, and also allow you to build horizontal speed. - Above 36km, you should aim for level flight, with a slight climb. Prograde vector should be very slightly above horizon. Usually, you will need a pitch attitude of about 15 degrees at this point. - Your speed should reach over 1900m/s surface, or 2050 orbital. Ideally, you can reach 2300-2400 m/s at about 40km. Horizontal speed is more important than vertical speed. - When the jet stops working, switch to rockets. A low thrust setting is all that is required to give you the final push out of the atmosphere. Use rockets burning prograde, or perhaps 10 degrees nose up if required. Again, using rockets to maintain horizontal speed is more important than gaining vertical speed. Your design looks like it should reach orbit easily, with two jet engines or a single jet.

It is not necessary to close them- at stages where I do not yet have action groups available I generally don't bother with closing them, and get to orbit just fine. However, if you have action groups available, it certainly doesn't hurt to close them, and depending on your altitude it may provide a great deal of benefit. My spaceplanes generally reach 40km and ~2350m/s on jets alone, all stock, with no intake spam (one intake per engine..). Using two intakes per engine gives the same results, except I reach that speed and altitude faster, so less jet fuel is needed. If you can reach 35-40km on jets, the drag is minimal to begin with, but closing your intakes is like getting FREE energy, so why not?

Also, just curious what your lander looks like. #2825 is generated when you launch a ship from basically a floating platform, via staging with a decoupler. The ship remains tagged as splashed down, which creates the same problems you saw- no orbit lines, can't switch vessels. I'm wondering if there are additional situations that produce that bug, which might help narrow down the root cause. Players launching from Duna's surface is obviously a pretty common event. Even launching after you have knocked bits off your ship due to a rough landing is pretty common, unfortunately I do that somewhat regularly.

The probodobodyne, Okto2, and Stayputnik do not have reaction torque, which is new in 0.90 beta. If you had probes with those cores from a previous save, they no longer have reaction torque after the 0.90 update.

There is a similar issue (#2825) which produces a similar result when launching from an ocean, via staging and decoupling. This is the first report I've seen of this from a solid surface. I know this will be difficult to reproduce, but if you do manage to reproduce it, posting a link to your output_log.txt or player.log file might be helpful. The locations of those files is described in the sticky on reporting bugs, in this forum. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a solution to this.

Getting your pitch control surfaces farther away from your COM will also give your more pitch authority. In other words, moving your elevator control farther back (aft), or putting a canard pitch control on the ship as far froward as you can make it. You have the right idea placing the COL behind the COM. However, for such a short craft, your COM is too far back. Yes, moving the COL closer to the COM will make the craft less stable, but this is unavoidable in a very short ship. In general, you can place the COL above the COM will no ill effects, I do this often. However, again because your ship is so short, having the COL so far above the COM is causing pitch moments which your elevators can't compensate for. I think if you move the COL closer to the COM, that plane will fly well, and be extremely maneuverable. One suggestion to make the plane more stable: Use some structural fuselage sections to make the plane longer. They don't add much weight or drag, and having a longer plane makes it easier to have a stable plane. - - - Updated - - - I see you have 4 sepatrons powering the command pod- I bet that's an exciting ride!

If your ship begins to rotate in any axis after you EVA, check to make sure all 3 trims are centered. Otherwise, as mentioned, some of the command pods are ejecting Kerbals who exit the pod. That's a known bug, which I imagine would be addressed soon.

I'm guessing you are running into the bug that causes radial decoupler issues. Is the decoupled tank tipping inward and colliding with the rest of your ship? If so, one solution is to use sepatrons to help propel the ejected tank away from the rest of your ship. Also, see the following thread, which contains more solutions to this issue- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v0-90-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v0-1-7d-6-Jan-15%29-Misc-Utilities-%2813-Jan-15%29