What did you do in KSP1 today?

[CatastrophicFailure]

20 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

(Why do all my launches seem to happen at night?)

Because you don’t use the handy-dandy “warp til morning” button right next to the space center clock. 

But congrats on the big day! This is a accomplishment I’ve never even attempted. 

[CatastrophicFailure]

3 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Take Six has begun

Maaaaaaaybe it’s time to turn down your difficulty settings just a touch. 

[StrandedonEarth]

11 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Because you don’t use the handy-dandy “warp til morning” button right next to the space center clock. 

But I go straight from the VAB to the pad (less memory leaks that way, or so I've heard), and warping megaton-class vehicles on the pad tends to be.... risky 

This is actually the second time I've done it, but the first time was in alpha, when the dV requirements were higher but there was no heat, and no ISRU

[CatastrophicFailure]

5 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

But I go straight from the VAB to the pad (less memory leaks that way, or so I've heard), and warping megaton-class vehicles on the pad tends to be.... risky 

This is actually the second time I've done it, but the first time was in alpha, when the dV requirements were higher but there was no heat, and no ISRU

Ya gotta hit it before you go to the VAB.   Dark KSC = button time!

[FeofileGrotter]

Welp, i'll show you the results of test of ESSP(Extra Small Science Probe).

On the launch...

Some boring work, and we are on the Mun orbit!

Powered landing and !!!SCIENCE!!!  After doing some work, we are ready to fly away!!! Yep, this probe will give us raw SCIENCE!!! No radio! Yeah!

Ascent went VERY AWFUL!!! Small TWR nearly ruined the whole mission! When it finally has been inserted into VERY LOW orbit, there was 1/7 of all fuel...
But I made it go to Kerbin. Whoo...

HARD REENTRY

A result of the whole mission: 26800 kg on the start, 170 kg after landing on Kerbin. Note: science landing pod did not actually land on Kerbin, it drowned!!!  

I'm embarrased.

 

[scottadges]

It's been a while since I posted in the WDYDIKT thread, but today I thought I'd post a sort-of PSA about an issue I ran into while using Kerbal Inventory System / Kerbal Attachment System (KIS/KAS).

How to Re-Root a Vessel In Flight using KAS

This was a very helpful video from 2017 for exactly what I was trying to do: How to re-root a vessel in flight - Kerbal Space Program 

(Note: This is not my video, it was just really helpful in explaining this workaround)

My problem: I was trying to remove an adapter from the end of my space station in order to install a larger Sr. Docking Port. After removing the old smaller port, the adapter became the root of the space station... so I couldn't remove the adapter, and I didn't want to remove the fuel tank above it. 

Basically, the workaround is to use KSP's vessel naming hierarchy to make one vessel a "Station" while the other is a "Ship", then using a KAS port you link from Ship >>> Station. Back out to the Tracking Station, then reload your Station/Ship linked vehicle, and you should see the root part has moved to the root part of the Station-named vehicle. 

In the image below, the new module (on the left) was set to "Station" while the old module/station (right) was set to "Ship". Once I reloaded, this allowed me to remove my adapter because it was no longer the root of the linked vehicle. I had previously added a structure off the side so the KAS port isn't attached to the adapter directly.

There's another post here on the forum that was helpful, but it didn't seem as relevant to my specific issue:

Hope this helps future generations of KIS/KAS users who may not know how to handle this issue!

Edited August 14, 2018 by scottadges

[Zeiss Ikon]

7 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Maaaaaaaybe it’s time to turn down your difficulty settings just a touch. 

Perhaps.  I'm clearly not beyond needing reverts and respawns yet, though I can live with the occasional permadeath (if I don't try to put Kerbals into airplanes, I usually do pretty well on that front).  The real thing that makes "hard" harder than "normal" is smaller rewards and larger penalties -- which, of course, contributes mightily to the bankruptcy problems.  But "too easy" is just as bad as "too hard".

[CatastrophicFailure]

8 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Perhaps.  I'm clearly not beyond needing reverts and respawns yet, though I can live with the occasional permadeath (if I don't try to put Kerbals into airplanes, I usually do pretty well on that front).  The real thing that makes "hard" harder than "normal" is smaller rewards and larger penalties -- which, of course, contributes mightily to the bankruptcy problems.  But "too easy" is just as bad as "too hard".

I was thinking more throttling back on the failure frequency. Been following along and it’s sounding like your flights are less a challenge of skill than a game of chance.  Or is that hard coded somehow?

 

[-M-TheDoctor]

On 8/12/2018 at 8:57 AM, Delay said:

Kerbal warming?

Kerbal Warming folks.... It's real....

[Daveroski]

Jeb Decided he wanted to try the BIG jet engine.

So he did

And It flew rather well. Got rotation at just over 40 mps.

 

It got all the way up to Mach 1.8 before...

 

 

 

The engine overheated and blew up.

 

We suggested that he ditch it and wait for pick-up.

But he said nahhhh.

 

I'm bringing her home...

We said he shouldn't show off and that he was just being silly.

He said... "I still have a wheel"

 

 

He bounced on the singe wheel for or five times and for a while he looked like he just might do it... Jeb's confidence is contagious.

"Any landing you can walk away from..." he said as he climbed out of the hatch.

[CatastrophicFailure]

15 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

We suggested that he ditch it and wait for pick-up.

 But he said nahhhh.

Classic Jeb. 

[NHunter]

With some tweaks (namely unloading most of enriched uranium from the reactor - I really don't need more than a few minutes worth of power - and changing the trajectory), I got my warpjet-powered nuclear dart to reach an even more face-melting speed:

Meanwhile, back in my career save, Eve probe mk1 finally made it to its destination. Completely encased in heat shields, it survived atmospheric (re)entry with no problem.

But once I jettisoned the upper heat shield, a serious design flaw was revealed: jettisoning it also destroyed the probe's only solar panel. Thankfully, the probe was equipped with a high-capacity battery and had enough charge to continue collecting and transmitting science.

The power finally ran out an hour after the splashdown in the Eastern sea, well after the primary mission was over. And despite some issues, this was a successful mission that earned me a hefty amount of science points.

Edited August 14, 2018 by NHunter

[Zeiss Ikon]

5 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I was thinking more throttling back on the failure frequency. Been following along and it’s sounding like your flights are less a challenge of skill than a game of chance.  Or is that hard coded somehow?

I'm not certain (six or seven weeks ago, the only mod I'd ever used was Better Burn Time), but I think Test Flight is hard coded to emulate the "newly introduced" and "best" failure rates of the real engines RO supplies (even the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engines failed from time to time, though fortunately not in a way that compromised a mission -- one "abort to orbit" was the worst they had). Every time I've had major issues with engine failures, it was because I'd just upgraded to new engine types (because I needed the new, more powerful engines for the next mission).  The RD-103 failures in the seven-engine booster and its second stage, and again in Baba Yaga, as well as the AJ10-37 failures and X-405 failures have all been low flight count engines for that career.

I may have to take another page from Nathan Kell, and put orbit off still longer, so as to put the LR-79 (or anything else I plan to use for critical missions) into service for sounding rocket contracts and build up a lot of flight time.  Then again, I'm up to episode 22 of his Rusty RP-1 video series, and he's been doing Lunar impact and orbit after grinding sounding rockets with heavier and heavier payloads for tens of hours, and is about to launch a Molniya followed by a geostationary -- and it's still not quite 1957 in his game.  On "hard" setting.

I freely admit, one of my failings is that I'm bad at managing money, either real or virtual -- and much of the RP-1 career is managing the as well as knowing when and how much to upgrade VAB, R&D, and apparently I'm supposed to just ignore the SPH and all the X-Plane contracts that can't be done with a rocket.

I've also noted that there is no (official) option to play a Science game in RO/RP-1 -- the critical first contract that unlocks the starter parts (Aerobee engine, A-4 parts, B-9 Early procedural wings, procedural tanks, avionics, decouplers, and nose cone) can't be accepted if you're playing without contracts.  I say "official" because when I started Take Six, I forgot to take that contract, went into the VAB, and found one rocket (of the fifteen or twenty designs I imported) that didn't report "contains locked or invalid parts" -- the basic, original WAC Corporal with the B9 fins.  After I'd looked that over, tooled the tanks, decouplers and nose cone, I remembered the first contract and went back to Mission Control -- only to find that contract wasn't available.  Checking R&D, however, showed that those critical first parts were available for "initial purchase" from R&D (or, since I didn't turn off  visibility of unpurchased parts, in the VAB).  I may find that I can start a science game, load that rocket, and similarly unlock the starter parts.  I'm still not sure how the "initial cost"  will work, but it's worth trying.  If there is no money, you won't run out.

Additionally, this would better support having multiple launch sites (White Sands first, then Canaveral, Wallops, Edwards AFB, Kodiak, Brownsville, etc.) -- as RO currently works, I can pick any launch site I like, but trying to run more than one (with non-custom settings) splits the upgrade points; I'd be in the 1970s before I could launch a satellite, never mind send crew to the Moon.

[scottadges]

On 8/12/2018 at 11:50 AM, AngrybobH said:

I have been doing tourist missions until I couldn't stand it anymore

After years of playing KSP only in Sandbox, I've now been working through a career game. I quickly found that tourist missions are the easiest way to make bank for those expensive 3.75m and 5m mega launch vehicles. 

I'll usually group contracts for flyby, landing, and station expansion with a couple relevant tourist contracts. It means providing extra life support (Kerbalism) and some larger vehicles to support 2-3 tourists, but the payout is usually really good. 

You probably are using this mod as well, but it really expands the type of contracts you can run:

Basically all of the contract pack mods (except Remote Tech, IMO) are must-haves for a better career game.

Edited August 15, 2018 by scottadges

[Triop]

[StrandedonEarth]

30 minutes ago, scottadges said:

After years of playing KSP only in Sandbox, I've now been working through a career game. I quickly found that tourist missions are the easiest way to make bank for those expensive 3.75m and 5m mega launch vehicles. 

I'll usually group contracts for flyby, landing, and station expansion with a couple relevant tourist contracts. It means providing extra life support (Kerbalism) and some larger vehicles to support 2-3 tourists, but the payout is usually really good. 

You probably are using this mod as well, but it really expands the type of contracts you can run:

Basically all of the contract pack mods (except Remote Tech, IMO) are must-haves for a better career game.

Yeah, I have Tourism Plus and run “Space Camp” missions on a 23-seat bus, which leaves room for additional tourists to pay for the launch. The big payoff from Space Camp is the three new kerbonauts, which are worth quite a bit in the later game. 

My Bus has oodles of dV to make Mun orbit, Minmus landing, and a peek into solar orbit, so that the new kerbals, and any other trainees or rescuees, come back as 3 star kerbals. Heck, I have one Bus on the way to Duna right now. 

Stacking as many contracts as you can into one launch is the way to go. The Bus often hauls a satellite secondary payload as well. 

[Cavscout74]

On 8/13/2018 at 7:31 PM, Cavscout74 said:

<snip>  I still need to work on it - for some reason the 3.75m greenhouse isn't showing up as a functioning greenhouse & I need to add something with a soil recycling module as well.  With full crew, snack duration is <1 year due to lack of recycling & a functioning greenhouse.

I spent today beating my head on the keyboard trying to get everything to play nice with Snacks,  I can start the greenhouse now but not stop it (both 3.75m & 2.5m), but none of the 3.75m parts have a functioning soil recycler despite the fact that they are supposed to.  The recyclers started working at one point, then stopped again on the next game load without me messing with the soil recycler section of the snacks config file.  I'm about ready to ditch the mod & go back to just simulating life support. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Cavscout74

[Draconiator]

I made probably not THE smallest launcher ever...(I made another one that probably takes that title)....but maybe the smallest that actually looks "normal" lol.  And I actually didn't make it today but filmed the video today.

 

[Whisky Tango Foxtrot]

I unlocked the 15G communication equipment, making interplanetary probes feasible, but it'll be a while before the next Duna or Eve transfer window opens, so I had to find something else to keep busy.

First off, I redesigned my rescue craft.

This one can hold two Kerbals (although I don't often use this functionality) and I don't have to worry about situations where the derelict doesn't have an EVA hatch. It also lets me dispose of the derelict while I do the rescue, so I don't have to worry about a bunch of junk cluttering up LKO.

I also unlocked OKTO2 probe cores, so I figured it was as good a time as any to build a new Mun lander (since my previous one was used as a disposable return craft for Jeb.) Mun Station also needed a tug, so I designed one of those, too, and sent them up together.

The new lander works well, and while I left out the mystery goo container and Science Jr. from the previous design (since they were more cumbersome than they were worth) I had access to the accelerometre this time around so I could still collect plenty of science.

The new tug also works well, and with three independent spacecraft now at Mun Station (the tug, the lander and the crew return ship) I should be able to flip that badly-installed tank around, but I didn't feel like doing that just yet.

Maybe next session.

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Yeah, I have Tourism Plus and run “Space Camp” missions

Beware of small, mischievous, spherical robots. 

do not need thermal curtain failure...

[AngrybobH]

2 hours ago, Cavscout74 said:

I spent today beating my head on the keyboard trying to get everything to play nice with Snacks

Have you written MM patches before? I ask because it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to edit the greenhouses to have what you need after they are loaded in. That is how I would fix it. Just change the part to mirror a Snacks part with your own values or even a direct copy. I have never used snacks but I have used all the other life support mods and patching in behavior for unsupported parts was not real difficult. Well, except for kerbalism but that's a different story. As a side note,  have you used USI life support? It is not any more complicated than snacks. I'm currently using it because of MKS and I like it for it's simplicity and lack of glitches.

[jack gamer]

I launched this little probe to Venus 

[JadeOfMaar]

I finally finished making this today. The SCIMITAR Advent 2.5m jet engine. With it my LAPCAT mach 5 cruiser analogue is technically complete.

(Scaled down to 2m to fit the plane proportions.)

[Ho Lam Kerman]

Today I attempted to recover some lost progress on my Gilly Elcano.

Let me explain:

Yesterday, as I was getting along in my Elcano, I reached a landmark, the landing site of a previous probe.

I stopped, and as I was getting out in inspect the probe, the rover started rolling back at 0.1 m/s: I forgot to put brakes on the thing.

 I tried everything; getting back into the rover, switching to the rover, quicksaving and quickloading, everything. Nothing worked.

I then restarted the game. Tadaa, 3.1 km of progress, a night's worth, erased.

I loaded a quicksave, and now I'm 1.5 km from the probe. Not bad, but could be better.

Valentina, you don't feel anything weird, but please understand that your god is having a few problems. 

 

Edit: I's not the fault of the rolling rover: I put brakes on, and confirmed that there was no movement whatsoever, then EVA'd. Everything still froze. But now I have a solution, that doesn't involve reckless game-breaking:

I use Hyperedit to land Valentina exactly above the rover. She is then fully functional and can perform normal EVA actions.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Ho Lam Kerman

[Stunkfish]

Wellllll,
after my first ever mining attempt...at the mun yesterday (only because of a contract...mun gravity makes mining there so useless anyways)...I started a mining project on Minmus today.

Much bigger, more advanced contraption (I thought).

So, getting myself to new personal records again...a lifter able to put 140+ tons into space (totally new for me...totally expensive in my first ever career mode game...but money is easy on normal difficulty).

Anyways, I made so many engineering mistakes again (learning curve!!!!). Have fun looking at the pic and telling me why the heck I lifted all those tons of oxidizer while using nerv engines on the lander/miner

Well, before I went to mining on Minmus I dumped all that Oxidizer on the space station above Minmus...still carrying those tanks around which I could have switched to pure fuel tanks without oxidizer. Also I am not sure that Nerv engines are the best choice to lift stuff from Minmus up to the space station there...but I will try.

It still looks better and performs better than that silly miner I put on the Mun yesterday

Have fun counting my engineering mistakes on this one:
Edit: There are 3 large 1500 ore tanks in the middle of this thingy...lets see how much of that I will be able to lift up to the space station 50ks above....

Edited August 15, 2018 by Stunkfish