Jester Darrak

How did the update affect the EV-2B? Did they fix the drag in the structural tubes?

I did a quick look at the NASA paper and noticed that the truss' diameter is more like the 3.75m tank than the 2.5m hab. But I guess you chose to have rather a "oversized" tank than an "undersized" hab since KSP is lacking proper 3.75m crew parts. I wonder if you could MacGyver something out of your M3V stuff to make it look like a 3.75m hab.

Finally, been waiting for those for an eternity!.Additionally I gotta say that once the LITE was my favorite upper stage and go-to for the majority of my missions. But the 'Thunder 2' took it's role. Looks and performance make this one of your best crafts ever. Kudos!

@Raptor9

I wonder If @Raptor9 got bitten by the bug again...

Narf... xD

Since we need a dedicated Relay Satellite for the Scarab, which probe out of your catalogue would you suggest in terms of capability, cost and durability? Or did you even have plans for a Deep Space Network?

If I was just able to read... xD

Maybe I'm stupid, but to me it looks like the Scarab Cruise Module is either out of balance itself or very prone to even light weight imbalancies. I strapped a MJ2 case onto it and wasn't able to hold attitude while using the Ant Engines. Additional note: Since MechJeb has it's problems with RCS thrusters I try not to use RCS whenever possible.

@Raptor9, I just wanted to say that I love your Centaur upper stage analogue. All those 1.875m parts from MH allow highly capable but still very compact and economic crafts that I am twice as Money efficient than in my Last game. The bang for the buck really outclasses the larger parts/vessels for Kerbin SOI exploration. I built a small probe to complete 3 satellite contracts in one flight and still had enough go-juice to send it to Duna/Ike for the fourth contract. Outstanding Work there!

There is also the option to decouple service modules manually. What I was wondering for a long time now, did you ever consider your Atlas analogues to use a double engine setup instead of the single Mainsail? Maybe the Twin Boar or a similar solution? That would make the Thunder 3 and 4 series even more different.

Although I like the reduction in size and probably biting off a big chunk of the launch cost I must say that the revised ScyCrane looks kinda clumsy, it not fat. But I do like the Rover and it's 'camera'.

What has happened to the Lockheed Martin style Duna Lander/SSTO, the one I suggested bringen christened Dragonfly? Is that still a thing? Because I don't like leaving stuff around that has no purpose anymore.

That, sir, is a monstrousity. And I like it. I like it a lot.

Well, if there is one good use for the engineer class it's operating mining and processing equipment. And the problem with attaching legs myself is to find the right angle an position to bring them in line with the other stuff. Maybe even a dedicated mining control module for the HLV-5 series could be useful. With the cupola on top to give the engineer superb 360 degrees field of view.