technion

I don't understand what you could legitimately do with this rocket. The 47-8S has a weight that's still close to 0, with far, far better stats.

Are there any shielded radial parachutes available? I've had a number of instances of lugging a heavy heat shield the whole way to eeloo and back, only to find it fully protects the command module, but I need to be extra careful and delicate on the re-entry because two dial parachutes that look like they are protected keep exploding. I don't mind if they weigh a tonne each..

I could easily do this with Mechjeb, or DRE, or any of the popular mods. Create a malicious DLL, create a post saying "hey guys, here's an updated version" and away we go. Or be more malicious and hack Curse or intercept traffic and delivery something malicious there. Or the makers of those mods could just pull a bait and switch. The point being nearly all these mods are downloaded without SSL and unsigned. Your concerns about a "random guy on the internet" come from the fact he's been open on this thread about doing something you don't like. That should actually make it easier to trust that he does what he claims.

That's exactly what a mod is - it's executable software. I could write a mod that pops up a prompt advising that a Nigerian Prince wants a credit card number and it's not an issue for Squad to "patch". Squad enforces a rule that says source code must be available. It's up to the community to decide what happens next. If it's malicious, a mod might remove it from this forum, but they won't patch KSP.

I had a "test a turbojet landed" contract which where I was given the "experimental" part, however, I hadn't unlocked intakes and had no way to fly it. I was still able to complete just by firing it though.

I agree with being paranoid, but let's look at reasons to calm down. There are already numerous mods I have running that alert me when there's an update. You know how? They contact a server, logging my IP address in the process (I'm not making any allegation about what they do with that), and advise I've just started using that mod. Over time it will advise I'm still using that mod. Noone cares less when that happens, although the information exposure is just as high. I like privacy. I have disabled this mod using the config edit as suggested. At least that option existed. I don't know what can be done with other mods, I'm not far off firing up Wireshark and finding out just what goes across the wire. For Steam users, gameplay stats are logged by steam, and stored in their magical cloud. We have no reason to believe it's secure. When players installed World of Warcraft, they weren't even advised the Warden was going to start scanning in-memory processes and gathering information on programs and drivers that were being run OUTSIDE of WoW. It was some years before they even acknowledged the existence of Warden. Warden was actually discussed before a court and no one called it illegal (even if EFF don't like it). If the community wants to get serious about enforcing privacy, maybe a step away from one individual mod, and a review of overall privacy and security processes are in order? There are plenty of places within the KSP this could be considered.

A completely unrelated nit-picking here: md5 - not even once. I appreciate there is no cryptographic requirements to your scenario, but this ancient hash algorithm just needs to die. Every recommendation for it, just encourages this broken security associated with new products using it.

Let's look at something with a slightly bigger budget than KSP: Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Windows, as opposed to KSP, is a finished product. And the third parties, people like Symantec writing Backup Exec, instead of being people who work on mods in their spare time, literally make a living from the additional features they offer the OS. So when a new Windows release comes out, and Symantec takes over two and a half years to release a version that even pretends to work under Windows 2012, we see a business world comparison to what you're complaining about. Except in most cases, modders manage to get home from work and update their mods in 1-2 days. They didn't even have to buy their users an Audi R8 to take attention away from their development incompetence. In short, I'm not seeing anything to be mad about.

Although I'm not involved in a space program, this accurately reflects the type of contract that often comes my way in some areas. I will refer to this as a realism feature

Although we call them "launch windows", note they would more accurately be called "the manoeuvre node that you make to get from Kerbin to planet x". I always just launch "now" and float around in orbit until the window comes up.

You quickly realise there is 0 science that can be gained from these rescue missions, and have to deal with going for the gold, or going for better science elsewhere.

I kept running into very odd parachute tests. I had planned on just doing these on the return of a mission, only to find that the standard Command Pod aerobraked itself way below the required speed by the time it hit the required altitude. The end result was trying to launch a mission that actually accelerated into it.

If you mean "aerobrake into a landing", dv doesn't really matter. I've entered Kerbin's SOE with < 50 dv once, and because the intercepting pe was about 20km, aerobraked all the way down to a landing.

The problem I run into is that the first of those points makes the second more difficult. From a 75km, round orbit, missing a window by one orbit is of negligible consequence. Now imagine I've done a few kicks, and the ap is out past the mun. Making another orbit now takes a long time, and can have a huge impact on the transfer accuracy.

If you need to refuel, a space station in sun orbit would be a nightmare to dock with. Firstly, you're not trying to get from ground on Eve all the way to Kerbin are you? Although I've done it, it's certainly not the easy way. You just want to aim to get from Eve ground, to an Eve orbit, and rendezvous there. Edit: This mission guide should help. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82321-Eve-in-a-single-mission I wouldn't recommend trying to replicate the entirety, but if you forget about that last stage and using ion power to get home to Kerbin, you'll have a much easier time.

I rovered about 180km on Eve. I think it's a great place for them - not taking off because you hit a slight bump like on the Mun is very handy. That doesn't help with the water but I always drove around the puddles.

The answer actually depends on your TWR. If you have a very low TWR, 8km may not be enough to shave off your speed before landing.

Far and away, the solution here is the PreciseNode mod. Make a node. Click on a planet and set your view there, then zoom in. The use the +- arrows in preciseNode to move it exactly where you want.

Thanks or that. I made a global jump to Th4 when I was trying to land a large spacestation on Tylo with a thermal rocket and couldn't get the TWR with UF4 - pretty much kept to it after that. In this case, the reactors were put into orbit with a plan to assist a spaceplane - it was never leaving Kerbin so the short lifespan didn't worry me. I launched it exactly as per the screenshot, put it in orbit, played with my spaceplane then did other things for a few days. I wasn't really worried about losing efficiency, but I did expect it to at least be operational. When I came back, it was decay heating. I can't test from here but I'll retry it with UF4 and see how it goes shortly.

That's what I assumed the problem was, but this thing seems to die even in a Kerbin orbit. It definitely seems to have plenty of sufficient cooling according to the thermal guide. Is it normal that when I switch to the vessel, all the radiators show the opening animation, as though they'd been closed?

I'm trying to understand what occurred here. I put a series of probes in LKO with Thf4 fuelled fission reactors. The system quite successfully pushed a small Atilla powered rocket out to Gilly. Problem is now that I'm there, although I do have some power, all three of these reactors are in decay heating mode. They all have fuel, so it's not a matter of running out. They were unmanned, so no kerbal shut them down. What would have put them in this position?

Wow I wouldn't have believed it! But is there any way at all to do this beyond massive fluke? I can't see how you could plan an ejection to Eve with a Munar assist.

The other thing I'd add is that precision landing to arrange a rescue really is a lot harder than it sounds. Personally I find it easier to build a working rover, land it somewhere nearby and rove on over. If that sounds quite advanced - that's because I see rescues as advanced. In other words, have a try at simply managing a land and return of a new rocket, before concerning yourself with the rescue. He won't die if he's left there while you skill up. Finally, you mentioned having very little fuel, but you might surprise yourself with how little can actually return to orbit from the Mun. Once there, the option to rendezvous in space might be an easier than trying to meet up on the ground.

I've hit scenarios where literally the only way I could drop a node was with the "Precisenode" mod. Process: * Create a node on the purple line, ahead of yourself. Note the node time, N * Use "next orbit" button, to get the future time, F. * Alt+tab out to windows calculator and calculate an orbit time as O = F-N * Calculate one orbit prior to the N as S = N - O * Copy and paste S into PreciseNode as the node time Yes, honestly of all the bugs in this game, this is the one that makes certain scenarios unplayable imo. I wish they'd focus on it. And before anyone asks, you can't just use "previous orbit" on the purple line, it won't land on the blue line like expected.

The nosecone is the one that kills me. It's terribly difficult to fit it anywhere. Great job on the spreadsheet. It's incredibly handing having this to plan from.