Louella

in your "gamedata" folder, do you see a folder for "MechJeb2" ? which should have 3 folders in it, for icons,parts and plugins ?

a different way to have tiers would be: 1: mechanical connection only 2: allows electricity and fuel transfer 3: also allows crew transfer with the higher tiers being more massy and expensive, maybe they even have a small electricity consumption. that way, there'd still be a niche for tier 1 docking ports, which would be deploying things like probes, and attachment points for things assembled in orbit, that don't need to transfer resources. I used Stayputniks on the top of the 1-seat capsules, for testing Mun and Minmus mission designs, to see if a capsule could go and return safely. If the robot mission succeeded, then it was go for a crewed mission. I also use the cheap probe cores for space stations, and testing space stations, to minimise risks to crew, and so I could leave a station uncrewed and it would still be controllable.

Today I built a large spaceplane to fulfil a contract to test a RAPIER engine The crew were anxious prior to the test Still anxious after the successful test and on approach to KSC Relief after a successful landing. All the way through, Minidou and Melgas were going D: and it was only after landing, that they were

today I accidentally left the atmosphere while testing an aeroplane that I was doing atmospheric scan contracts with.

More landing gears for aeroplanes/spaceplanes

the biggest abuse of the "Science from space around Kerbin" contract, is ofc that you don't have to build a new craft to do it. I can see the "science from space" contracts as making some sense, if it is an electronics or radioastronomy company, that are testing some kind of instrument or receiver on the ground, and they want a signal from space as a reference in testing their equipment. If you had to build some kind of new craft, with a specific science experiment on it, in order to fulfil the contract, then that would be something, that might help to limit the more extreme abuses, while retaining the contracts as a useful earning contract. The counter argument, is that if you've got one satellite into a stable orbit, that can continually fulfil those "science from space" contracts, then that is something that you can use to get out of a bad career situation, if you've spent a lot of your funds on something that exploded with no return. I think, maybe the big question is whether it should be possible to "lose" a career game. If it shouldn't, then there has to be ways to recover from a bad situation, and these contracts are one of those ways.

I have a couple of basic aircraft. And just about the only reason I have them, is because doing atmospheric survey contracts is profitable, and is a useful earning thing to do, while waiting for moon or planetary missions to reach their destinations. The atmosphere of Kerbin, is almost irrelevant to the vast majority of my game. It is just an obstacle to be overcome. All the atmosphere effectively does for most of my spacecraft, is mean I have the Kerbin terminal velocity in atmosphere table open in a browser on my second monitor, so I adjust the throttle of my rocket to minimise losses due to atmospheric drag. On the spacecraft that return to Kerbin, the atmosphere means I have to remember to have enough parachutes, to make a safe landing. That's all the atmosphere and aerodynamics means to the majority of my spacecraft = a limitation on launch acceleration, a restriction on minimum orbital height, and a requirement for X number of parachutes for return missions. Changing how aerodynamics works would mean altering the limitations on launch, and the requirements for parachutes and/or heat shield for return missions. But how aeroplanes or spaceplanes work would make little difference to my game, except in career modes, where the survey contracts are consistent earners.

I had to open the image in another tab and zoom to full size to see Venus in your picture, nice view

I admit, I am not a particularly skilled player, despite playing for years (since before the Mun was there) I have a couple of basic aircraft. And the only reason I have them, is because doing atmospheric survey contracts is profitable, and is a useful earning thing to do, while waiting for moon or planetary missions to reach their destinations. The atmosphere of Kerbin, is almost irrelevant to the vast majority of my game. It is just an obstacle to be overcome. All the atmosphere effectively does for most of my spacecraft, is mean I have the Kerbin terminal velocity in atmosphere table open in a browser on my second monitor, so I adjust the throttle of my rocket to minimise losses due to atmospheric drag. On the spacecraft that return to Kerbin, the atmosphere means I have to remember to have enough parachutes, to make a safe landing. That's all the atmosphere and aerodynamics means to the majority of my spacecraft = a limitation on launch acceleration, a restriction on minimum orbital height, and a requirement for X number of parachutes for return missions. Changing how aerodynamics works would mean altering the limitations on launch, and the requirements for parachutes and/or heat shield for return missions. But how aeroplanes or spaceplanes work would make little difference to my game, except in career modes, where the survey contracts are big earners.

today, I built an aeroplane that was fast enough to have red flamey aerodynamic effects not really enough control authority to do what I wanted it to do though, back to the drawing board

what about Zorbing ? wasn't there one of the Mars rover missions that was intended to land, or did land, by being inside a giant balloon/airbag that deflates on impact ? I can see a possible advantage to having an ascension craft land by airbag/balloon/zorb, and the astronauts descend seperately, then assemble it properly for takeoff, but again, it does seem a bit out there to parachute from orbit. Could see zorbing as being a thing for landing large numbers of equipment canisters, or other unmanned stuff, if there's a limitation on being able to control stuff from Mission Control in orbit/on Earth, because of time delay/bandwidth/power issues.

There'd have to be a space traffic control agency in place. For one thing, a sub-orbital flight that other countries haven't been notified about, might have the appearance of an atomic missile. iirc, the Israeli space agency launches to the west, rather than the east, for this reason.

I'm a low skilled player, though I've been playing Kerbal Space Program on and off for a long time, since before there was a Mun. I agree that it doesn't make sense that digging up rocks on Kerbin allows bigger rocket engines. Although in the 'real' world, it's sometimes the case that a thing developed for one purpose, finds use in another. (wasn't the thing that makes cellphone cameras possible, originally from spy satellite programs?) However, there still has to be ways for a player to unlock new parts, such as larger engines, using the stuff they have. But, it's easy to make things overcomplicated. You can divide up the tech tree in all sorts of ways, and make all sorts of arguments as to why that makes more sense. Things like, dividing tech into "Materials science, Electrical engineering, Propulsion Systems, Sensor Technology, Structural Engineering" would be one way. But then you've got a lot of categories, which means complexity, which isn't necessarily bad, but complexity for its own sake isn't good either. To me, I think it would make sense if there were no more than 3 kinds of "Science" data. Space flight data, atmospheric flight data, survey data. And many parts would be able to be unlocked using more than one kind of data. And you'd probably get more than one kind of data from an experiment or report. Like: Jeb launches from KSC in a sub orbital rocket flight, takes a couple of crew reports, and the ship is recovered. The mission would provide some data on space flight (from crew report on use of the rocket engine), some data on atmospheric flight (because of crew report in atmosphere), and some survey data (crew reports). Recovery provides data on space and atmospheric flight, through examination of the materials of the recovered parts, and/or any telemetry data, and/or any data from the Tracking Station. A Kerbal at the R&D centre thinks "We could use this data to improve our rocket design" = designs for new engines. A second Kerbal thinks "We could do this, to improve flight through the atmosphere" = designs for wings or control surfaces. A third Kerbal thinks "If Jeb had one of these, we could learn more" = designs for new sensors and other devices. Meanwhile: Bill and Bob are on a rover mission around KSC The mission provides very little on space flight, little data on atmospheric flight, and a lot of survey data. Recovery of the rover, and examination of the materials would be the only thing that makes sense in providing data for rocket engines or aerodynamics. Crew reports and telemetry would also provide data. A Kerbal at the R&D centre thinks "We need better materials for building with" = some improvement in atmospheric and space flight science. A second Kerbal thinks "We could learn more, if we had these" = more sensors and other devices A third Kerbal thinks "If these were automated, we could do more at once, but we'd need to power them" = automation, battery technologies. If a player needs more space flight data, then contracts for experimental part tests should be able to provide it. It would make sense for better space technologies to be unlocked through doing lots of space flight testing contracts, or for better atmospheric technologies to be unlocked through atmospheric flight contracts. To me, that would make sense, but even that might be overly complicated.

I know, right? The 3,4,5 triangle, and the diagram of the Solar System, might be the most important diagrams ever

I don't know. To talk to spacecraft that are that far out, requires a lot more infrastructure, like, aren't the NASA missions reliant on a network of those big radiotelescopes at Madrid and Canberra ? I don't know that there's the politics or funding in place for any other entities to make a similar network of radio telescopes that would be necessary to talk to a manned Mars mission. I don't know that NASA would be able to share that network, or if they'd be willing, because they need it for their own missions.

this image that I remember seeing a while ago, http://i.imgur.com/Vx30g.png Aliens could begin to communicate using that sort of thing. The 3/4/5 right-angled triangle, Pi, and all that, to begin to understand how to communicate with Terrans via maths. And then once mathematical communication is achieved, that's the key to deciphering radio signals, including television. And that's where the real problems begin. What with all the alien invasion movies from the 1950's, satellite TV ....ography, sportball and so on. Explaining all that would keep the aliens anthropologists busy for quite a while.

one of the comments there seemed to suggest that there are records for reaching: 5km, 11km, 22km, 35km, 56km, and then beyond atmosphere. so I quickly checked on a new game, and it does seem to have those. Might be useful for an early tutorial, get more funds and stuff.

Is there a list somewhere, of the early career height record contracts ? In my game, I did the 5000m altitude record contract, then the 22km record contract, then the "Reach Space" contract. But, from looking at other threads, I gather that I missed several.

i think that one really depends on what is mounted on the capsule. If there's anything other than the normal parachute on the top, then I think they're more likely to go flying away. sometimes they stay on the tiny ladder on that capsule, sometimes they don't.

for parachutes that an engineer has repacked. Is there a way to trigger them using the staging control ? or by another control ? or does it always have to be done manually ?

I've played a couple rescue missions so far, and have noticed that they seem to be for rescuing Kerbals who, upon return, will be level 1 in their profession. Thing is, that in almost any program, you'll have a lot of level 1 Kerbals, because it's the easiest thing to do. Get them into an orbit of Kerbin and get them back, and they're level 1. Simple. So, if you do a lot of rescue contracts, you'll end up with even more level 1 Kerbals, that you don't really need for your program. Would it be better, for there to be a chance for a level 2 or even a level 3 Kerbal from the rescue mission ? My thinking is that it would be more rewarding for longer running career games to keep picking up rescue contracts, and in early stages of career games, a level 2 or 3 Kerbal could really help on some missions.

I'm guessing that they tripped going out the door, lol. though, it probably also has something to do with any parts being anywhere near the doors.

is it a new test vehicle that you've built since accepting the contract ? did you patch over an existing installation of KSP, or is it a fresh install ?

one of the most challenging contracts i've done so far, was to test a parachute at 23km, at 200m/s. after trying and failing to do it with rockets, I tried an aeroplane, but, found that the engine flamed out below the required altitude. I managed to do it by going to maximum thrust below the altitude then going into a steep climb. Engine flames out, but momentum is enough to get to the required height, wheee! the most technically challenging one so far, was to test one of the big solid rocket boosters, in orbit of Kerbin. I did eventually get a big enough launcher to get it into orbit, and then used the solid booster (which was mounted upside down), to deorbit everything, for maximum parts recovery \o/ though, the kerbalnaut rescue one was quite hard as well. these probably sound easy to experienced players though, lol

I just now built a "Crew Training Bus", which lofts into low Kerbin orbit, a command pod attached to two hitchhiker containers, and a small engine and fuel tank, which allows me to train a pilot and 8 other Kerbals to level 1, with one mission, heh.