CaptainArchmage

If the data is solely digital then it should be possible to move the data to a capsule just by having the module attached to your ship somehow. If the material is physical stored in a command module, it should be possible to transfer as IVA movement would allow. There are a few experiments which are exposed to space and have more than just digital data, and I think you should probably need to EVA to recover that. This would probably apply to the goo canister and materials bay, but not the other experiments.

I just installed and tried out the cloud pack. While launching my Duna Ascent spacecraft from Kerbin, the game ran quite slow (1 second of game time per two-four seconds of real time) with the clouds and planet in view, before returning to the borderline green/yellow flashing state. It was a night-time launch. When I got into orbit, however, Kerbol was rising and I suddenly get the lighting on the rocket flashing, and then a crash. I’ve uninstalled the mod and am checking whether the same happens without the mod installed. Edit: I launched the Duna Ascent spacecraft without volumetric clouds installed under the same conditions and did not have a problem. The only changes made to the rocket were the addition of a remote guidance unit, which probably is not responsible. It looks like it is a volumetric clouds issue. OS: Mac OSX. No other mods were installed, and this is the first time I’ve installed this mod. No really I’d really like to try this out, particularly with the Duna landings upcoming in about 50-60 earth-days. Because my “Apollo-style Mun mission†went straight to Ike, I might be able to see the dust storms from orbit.

I heard about the volumetric clouds from Scott Manley’s latest interstellar quest video (at the time of posting this). How good a graphics card does this require to use?

I have a career save from 0.22.0 and 0.23.0 which I want to port to 0.23.5. How do I do it? I did load it up without going to the R&D centre, but I found no asteroids. I then started a sandbox mode and tested the new parts. I haven’t tried out the Claw yet, but I may have to use it to shift some gigantic 3.75 meter SSTO space junk.

I made it to other planets (and, in some cases, returned) in previous versions, but thanks to the optimisations and larger parts, I’m able to do it more regularly. I built an Apollo-style mission to the Mun, but after ending up in orbit with a full tank of fuel I went on to Ike on a sub-optimal transfer on Day 1. Return from Ike will happen when I can stop the Kerbals ragdolling on the surface; in the meantime I’m going to see how many places I can go to. I wonder whether the 3.75 meter parts are useful for Eve ascents?

On Mac, they've also fixed the click-on-crewhatch issue, which is absolutely great.

Normally, ion engines work for a few weeks, months, or years before the spacecraft reaches the target, so the ballistic trajectory is continuously changing. KSP doesn’t model this; when the spacecraft is accelerating you need to have it in focus. This is unlike conventional spacecraft where you can just run a high time acceleration or launch other rockets while it gets to its target. Because of this, the ion engines need to provide a lot more thrust to make the game reasonably playable.

Wait the ion engine uses 4x less electricity and produces 4x as much thrust? Does that mean at maximum throttle it uses the same amount of electricity as it does now, while producing 4x as much thrust, or does it mean that at maximum throttle it uses 4x less electricity and produces 4x as much thrust? It looks like ion-powered landings will be possible on more celestial bodies! Edit: I did some calculations. The TWR of ion engines technically allows a full Tylo ascent, but in practice solar panels will still be needed. However, Moho landings on ion engines should be possible now.

If the asteroids spawn in a collision course, then having asteroids impact planets is called Sitting Around Doing Nothing. In other news, Squad says they consider this to be 0.23.10 rather than 0.24.

64-bit is supposed to be faster, because most modern processors are optimised for 64-bit processes. When 32-bit processes run, they use some level of emulation that slows things down a bit. Besides that you can address more RAM, so KSP can use up more than 4GB if necessary. Normally this part isn't that much of a problem for KSP unless you have mods installed or just maybe if you have a very large number of ships or very large ships loaded in physics range.

Good! Someone will grow up knowing what actual space stations look like, and also what usually works and what does not.

I think all your points are valid. The 3m cockpit needs an IVA mode, and the attachment points for the 3m aircraft parts are not very convenient. A while ago the devs said the Mk2 and Mk3 cockpits will probably get graphical overhauls though, so it seems that option 4 is likely to happen.

In one of the streams, the devs said that the NASA mission pack will be incorporated into the stock game rather than as a standalone download. This probably means you will have asteroids as well as the other parts when you start a new game or port over a save (maybe as of 0.24), and the "avert asteroid collision" mission will be a scenario. The devlogs suggest the NASA pack development has become a full-time job, so 0.24 is going to be gigantic. They aren't even in the feature-lock phase or Quality Assurance phase yet.

Before moving to career mode, I build some heavy ion-powered spacecraft. There was a three-kerbal spacecraft to Eve using the large command pod with five ion engines, many batteries and solar panels, and a lot of the xenon tanks. I used this to get to Eve in about 20 days, not just during a Hoffman transfer launch window. This required a burn of over two hours. One point of electric propulsion is to cut down on travel time as much as possible. However, most people seem to use ion propulsion just for Hoffman windows.

I got a message that this is open for adding modules to a space station. Is that still open? I am signed up to the (rotating?) list by the way.

1. The delta-v requirement does not change with vehicle mass. You will probably have an orbital velocity of 3-4km/s, so you will need to eliminate that completely to come to a stop. The delta-V you have is given by: Delta-V = 9.81 * Specific Impulse of Engine * ln((initial mass of ship) / (final mass of ship)) Given that your spaceship has a mass of 2000 tons, assuming you are using the LV-T30 or LV-T34 engines, you will need to have at least 1125 tons of fuel on board to do this. 2. Your acceleration would need to be on average 50-70m/s^2 given the 3-4km/s delta-V. That is quite high.

Two things. 1) "Resources" are the things your spacecraft carries or takes in such as liquid fuel, oxidizer, electric charge, xenon, intake air, monopropellant, and solid fuel. Some of these resources can be transferred between your spacecraft parts. I think this was brought in properly at 0.18. 2) When players ask when "resources" are going in these days, they normally mean resource harvesting. You can get electric charge from RTGs and from solar panels, and intake air can be obtained using air intakes in atmospheres where there is oxygen. Originally, for 0.19 Squad were developing systems to harvest liquid fuel, oxidizer, monopropellant, and other resources from other planets by mining and refining. However, they never got this far, and the original plan was scrapped. Resources in this sense are going to be worked on, but we aren't sure how they will look or the timescale for putting them in.

I see this thread has been visited by a necromancer. I will add in my thoughts for now: -Recently, we heard about the NASA asteroid mission pack, which is at least going to be a free set of missions featuring moving an asteroid off a Kerbin impact trajectory. It will, naturally, feature asteroids. -From the reports, it sounds like Harvester and a lot of the devs are busy working on this for now. It may come out with 0.24, maybe not. For this reason it is likely Gas Planet 2 will not show up, unless they decide to throw it in as an extra. -It is not clear whether asteroids will go into the main game or not. As I mentioned in another thread, if the hardware requirements are increased significantly, the developers may keep it as a separate mission pack. -The gas giant planets are planned to have a ring of small moons, which may just carry a designation like "hurr durr minor moon 18375", so having asteroids in the game may help with creating a new experience for gas giant 2. -Last year we heard that Kerbal Space Program needs to be able to manage the memory better to cope with more planets, and it is not currently 64-bit except for Linux, because of serious game-breaking bugs in Unity. The devs may have already fixed the memory use issues regarding planets.

I think it sounds good. Preferably the asteroids should be incorporated into the main game, unless they are particularly stressful on hardware. You can add to the list "resources can be mined from asteroids", for when resource extraction goes in.

There was an issue shown in one of Scott Manley's recent Interstellar Quest videos, where the cubic octagonal struts have a physics bug, and this can possibly rip the ship apart. He had some mods running which caused maximum g-forces to be exceeded. There was another bug in which a spacecraft would suddenly be duplicated in the same location, so when physics starts up you get a huge explosion. I think this was also documented in Interstellar Quest. In orbit around the Mun, spacecraft get hit by phantom forces. I experienced this one recently when I looked at the BABYLON: Derelict challenge. There is a spacecraft in orbit around the Mun that starts out pointing North, but it starts to roll around once the physics starts. I had one situation where the game did not load from save properly. I associated this one with trying to repeatedly load games in quick succession, though it may be something else.

Recently I have had some 100% reliable rockets, which means I am either playing the game very right or very wrong. Yes, I have excess fuel on some of these, and recently changes have been "adding more boosters to increase delta-v from Kerbin orbit" or "I'm going to put in better control systems and optimise the number of gimballing engines vs. lightweight engines", so the ships seem overengineered.... until you have to perform powered flight over the Mun to find a flat landing ground, that is. The Mun rocket design I have could probably make it to Eve or Duna orbit and back with an optimal trajectory.

That's right, the mission is to deflect the impact and bring the asteroid into orbit around Kerbin. I hope this goes in .24 and I also hope we get asteroids in the game as of then, preferably with some way to mine them for resources.

It may have been suggested already, but Krash or Krash would be a fine name for a currency - how many rockets will actually make it? A more serious name would be Kerbols.

The asteroid mission pack is incredible, I'm not surprised Kerbal Space Program went this far. Is this going to be a scenario or will the asteroids be added to the standard game as well? Edit: There is currently a mission by NASA to send a spacecraft to an asteroid and bring the asteroid to lunar orbit. The articles say that the Kerbal Space Program mission will be to prevent impact and bring the asteroid into orbit around Kerbin. This means you will probably need to launch many rockets and probably do some mission planning.

Personally, I think resources should be developed at least a little in the same update that money is introduced in, which happens to be the next one. At least have a resources map so we can do a scientific mission to find them. "You have been awarded 10,000 Kerbols in advance to land at <Zone> on the Mun and determine the resources present in the regolith. The reward will be 30,000 Kerbols, with a bonus of 20,000 Kerbols for a sample return".