mhoram

Have a look here, where RoverDude explains the design: You would need to change the value 1200 in the config files. They can also be made in the "MKS 'Tundra' Assembly Plant", "MKS 'Atlas' Factory" and "WOLF Manufacturing Hopper" via the according recipes.

EVA-Konstruction receives a Bonus, only if an Engineer is in the KonStructor. See here: https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/Konstruction/blob/eecfe00077c8c9f643b55d821c15fcaa53ee26f9/Source/Konstruction/EVA/ModuleKonstructionForeman.cs#L38

Thanks for your reply, so I am not the only one with this behavior. Unfortunately in order to use some konstruction-functionality of the KonStruktor, it is required, that a Engineer is in it - it is not sufficient, that an Engineer is on the Vessel in a different part. I can see two possible solutions: Ability to move Kerbals into the KonStruktor (I don't know how to implement that) KonStruktor should look in all parts of the vessel, if an Engineer is on board (I created a PR for this)

Currently I am trying Orbital Konstruction and am having problems with the "KS-500-O KonStructor". (After some tests, the same issue happens with the "KS-250-O KonStructor") I am able to put crew into the part while in the VAB, but inflight, I can not transfer crew to the "KS-500-O KonStructor". After using the Stock Transfer-Button, nothing happens, when I click on the KonStructor. I also tested the Mod "ShipManifest", but the KonStructor does not appear as a part in the transfer window. I verified that this problem happens without any other installed mods. Is this a known issue and if so, what is the best way to transfer crew to a "KS-500-O KonStructor"?

USI introduced the concept of recyclers as an extension of storage tanks, that allow recycled MaterialKits from disassembled parts to be stored in certain storage tanks. Currently ConfigurableContainers does not allow storing these MaterialKits. The following patch makes this work for me: // Add USI recyclers to parts which are managed by Configurable containers @PART[*]:NEEDS[USITools]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleTankManager]] { MODULE { name = USI_ModuleRecycleBin } } Should I create a Github-PR to the ConfigurableContainer or to the AT_Utils repository to add this functionality?

@modus perfect, thank you!

I am on KSP 1.13.3 with MKS v112.0.1 (and nothing else) and there seems to be a problem with costs of containers in Career mode. In the VAB the individual costs of containers is not calculated: The cost for Commodities container should be 8.1Mil according to https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/USI_Core/blob/9a2e3bb55dc5988b929104c5f7b559e1e92264a7/FOR_RELEASE/GameData/UmbraSpaceIndustries/Kontainers/Parts/Kontainer_03.cfg#L79 However the calculated price is only 26k. After launching the vessel and immediately recovering it, it gets very expensive: The configuration of the parts were: - Kontainer (3.75m): Commodities - Karibou Cargo Crate: Karbonite - Kontainer Tank (1.25m): Karborundum I had a look at https://github.com/snjo/Firespitter/blob/a8922491bf410dccbf5d28ef6a8c14bad5752648/Firespitter/customization/FSfuelSwitch.cs#L229-L241 but could not find anything unusual. Any recommendations of how to deal with this issue?

I was able to use the following Patch for maxing science experiments @EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION:HAS[#baseValue[>2]]:Final { %baseValue = #$scienceCap$ } Note that it lacks the "[*]" of maculator's original and I exclude Breaking-Ground experiments via "HAS[#baseValue[>2]]".

MKS comes bundled with Firespitter. Since Firespitter is not of interest for me, I would like to know, what is safe to delete of Firespitter and still keep all functionality of MKS. Am I correct to assume that if I keep "Firespitter.dll", I can delete all other files within "GameData/Firespitter/"? Or should I keep all files and use a MM-Patch like this to disable all Firespitter parts? !PART[*]:HAS[#manufacturer[Bitesized?Industries]]:Final { }

No MiniAVC.dll in my GameData directory, I made sure to test this setup in a fresh installation. But I was able to resolve the Exception for me by installing ClickThroughBlocker and ToolbarControl.

In the following setup I get an exception during loading the game: - KSP 1.12.2 - Toolbar 1.8.0.7 - MechJeb 2.12.3.0 - RCSBuildAid 1.0.6 The exceptions is (If needed, I can provide a complete logfile): [ERR 13:54:19.816] [AssemblyLoader] Exception when getting assembly attributes: Exception of type 'System.Reflection.ReflectionTypeLoadException' was thrown. Additional information about this exception: System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type of field 'RCSBuildAid.Toolbar:button' (0) due to: Could not load file or assembly 'aaa_Toolbar, Version=1.8.0.5, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. assembly:aaa_Toolbar, Version=1.8.0.5, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null type:<unknown type> member:(null) signature:<none> If I uninstall MechJeb, the Exception does not appear. May I ask you to have a look at this issue? Edit: I was able to resolve this issue by installing ToolbarControl and ClickThroughBlocker, the prerequisites of Toolbar.

I can also recreate the same exception with the following minimal setup: - KSP 1.12.2 - Trajectories 2.4.1 - Toolbar 1.8.0.7 - MechJeb 2.12.3.0 - RCSBuildAid 1.0.6 Uninstalling a single one of them resolves the exception.

@mdapol I am getting the same exception in KSP 1.12.2 (KSP + BG&MH Extensions + Trajectories 2.4.1 + TacFuelBalancer 2.21.5.1) and I was able to get Trajectories working by uninstalling TacFuelBalancer, which you also have installed.

Published a new version for KSP 1.12.2

This looks like an interesting demo: https://www.pcgamer.com/free-mars-base-demo-from-homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-dev-is-now-on-steam

Apparently a researcher team managed to use ion engines in the atmosphere. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/silent-and-simple-ion-engine-powers-a-plane-with-no-moving-parts/

The most important aspects of interplanetary travel are collected in this tutorial: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/16413-tutorial-interplanetary-how-to-guide/ This thread contains a nice chart for interplanetary transfer windows: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/43465-ksp-planetary-transfer-quick-reference-chart-gtgtgt-now-combined-ltltlt/ Two online-resources for calculating transfer-windows are: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/30367-web-app-launch-window-planner/ and http://ksp.olex.biz/

Have a look at the explanation section here: " 4/π − 1/2 ohms". There is also a link to a page detailing the math behind it.

XKCD says it all ;-)

Guess what came to my mind when I saw this: ;-) From: http://laughingsquid.com/lego-space-kraken-demolishing-a-star-wars-super-star-destroyer/

Don't know it this fits into your portfolio, but in my opinion the most novel mod is: It replaces the stock Patched Conics Model (Kepler Orbits) with real-life N-Body physics.

And since this is a problem that all of us deal with, @Meithan was kind enough to create this webapp based on @taverts work, to find the most efficient engine in any kind of situation:

Recently I made some tests about the efficiency of the different parachutes: I came to the conclusion that masswise the Mk2-R works better than the other parachutes. For the calculation I personally use a massratio in the ballpark of 1:10. ~91% mass: parts that I want to land on Kerbins surface ~9% mass: 0-2 drogue chutes (depends on situation) and as many Mk2-R as needed to get the 1:10 massratio So for example if I want to land a ship that has a mass of 6 ton, I put around 0.6 ton of parachutes on it. (1 Mk12-R plus 5-6 Mk2-R). In this configuration I get a touchdown speed of about 5m/s. It was also sufficient to land on highlands and mountains, although the touchdown speed was higher there.

The original old number I got from http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Specific_impulse#Conversion_factor There is also a method described how the number was determined experimentally. The change to 9.81 was mentioned in a thread about physics here on the forum.

Yes, the conversion factow was changed from 9.82 to 9.81 some versions ago.