Echo11

Both are already present in the mod, as long as you have the bundled Waterfall mod installed.

I still prefer KJR, personally, especially after I started using KJR:Next. I did try out autostruts when I updated the game to 1.12, but went back to KJR after a while. Thats mostly because autostruts are rather painful to set up, especially for someone like me who enjoy building massive crafts, and switching out parts constantly. There's also the fact that I could never figure out which autostrut mode to use. Besides, my crafts would still wobble excessively in flight, despite using autostrut. Lastly, I also had a lot of issues with boosters detaching on launch pad when using autostrut, which stopped happening after I went back to using KJR.

Which version of Kerbal Joint Reinforcement are you using? I personally use KJR:Next, and have pretty much no issue with the LRV. Though, I also set up the craft in VAB like this: disable steering and motors on all four wheels, keep all hinges on the LRV unlocked with motors engaged, and disable the reaction wheel on main rover chassis. That way, it should still be able to deploy normally, even whit the wheels clipping into descend stage.

Time for more screenshot tax. Here's the landing of a LM Shelter, which would be the first of a series of Apollo-derived surface shelter missions I plan to do. It was launched yesterday, which was also the 50th anniversary of Apollo 17's launch. To commemorate the mission, I decided to use a crewed Apollo CSM in the same configuration of Apollo 17's CSM to deliver the LM Shelter, instead of the unmanned Apollo SM I normally use. That last screenshot is one of the two Voyager Mars landers launched not long ago to the Mun, as a test flight of the entire Voyager Mars concept. As for why I included a screenshot of this lander here, that's because it is the landing target for the LM Shelter. The other lander would also be the target of another crewed Munar mission in the future, while the two orbiters serve as relays for other missions.

Just found out about that, and saw some hilarious examples. XD Never expected this to become a meme after all these years, but memes work in mysterious ways, I suppose. lol

Hearing a Linkin Park song while going through the KSP forum is probably the last thing I'd expect. lol I know this is just a meme post, but as someone who's a devoted fan of Linkin Park, with them being my favorite band of all time, THANK YOU.

This is only your second time commenting about this, though, or maybe one of the comments got buried or deleted? Anyway, your suggestion probably got buried under all all the other discussions, and the devs just missed it, that's all. Besides, the devs don't necessary have the time to respond to every single suggestions ASAP. So no need to push it, yeah?

That's what I have in mind as well, just KSP being KSP, I guess. XD And yeah, as long as it still work after most reloadings, it all good lol. Good to know, thanks again for doing this!

I do use KJR:Next, but there's nothing to worry about. It's just me setting up the rover parts wrong when designing the craft, and locking those plates during the actual flight. In fact, I did a test flight to the Mun (on a different save created for the test) after I made some changes to the design (disabling the steering and motors on all four wheels, turning off the reaction wheel on main rover body, etc.), and everything went well. I was able to deploy and assemble the LRV without issue, and it even survived multiple save-loading in its folded state, which was what destroyed the old one in the first place. Something thats been happening to the rover deployed at the shelter, though, is that some of its parts, especially robotic parts like both forward and aft plates, does have a slight tendency of exploding when loading a save. It's a rare occurrence (like one out of ten times), however, and usually won't happen when reloading the save again. Thank you very much. It would be great for those who enjoys recreating historic and ETS missions like myself. I'm curious though, would the CM still be able to carry a crew, while being unmanned capable at the same time?

That's a pretty good solution for missions with crew. However, what I was thinking of were missions like Apollo 4, Apollo 6, or those early Block I tests, where it would be necessary for the Command Module to detach from the Service Module, going through reentry, open parachutes, and splashdown, without crew on board. An AARDV core on the SM couldn't cover those phases, while adding a probe core to the CM would either makes it look weird, or hiding the core inside (thus can't change its SAS settings, etc.).

Well, since I've been using this awesome and beautiful mod for over three years by now, I think it's time for me to pay a tiny bit of my long overdue screenshot tax. XD Here's an ongoing Early Lunar Shelter mission, featuring LM Taxi, LRV, as well as almost every single surface experiment in BDB (and some stock ones). I had to cheat a new rover to the surface due to original one (that came on the LM Taxi) getting Kraken'd in Munar orbit, and then self destruct during surface deployment. Despite that, the mission it still going fine as of now. Doing this mission does reminds me, though, is it possible to make Apollo CM (both Block II and Block III+ variants) unmanned capable, instead of requiring minimum crew of one? It would be a lot more convenient not having to try and squeeze in a probe core for missions like Apollo 4/6, recreating ETS Artemis landings, etc.

Let me guess, Scott Manley's latest Delta Rocket History video? Honestly though, what an interesting concept, and actually looks kinda okay appearance wise.

I was curious about it, so I looked into it a bit. According to the Mission List on the alternate history wiki, both the Airlock Module and ERM (FRM in BDB) are launched on Saturn IC, with AARDV Tug as control. The missions are AARDV-4 and -6, respectively.

In BDB? Yes, both 4m & 5m version (2.5m & 3.125m in KSP scale, respectively) of DCSS are in the mod. They would have the same name if you use the BDB_RealNames patch, though, and have to distinguish the two from their descriptions.

Do you perhaps have the Real Name patch from BDB Extras folder installed? If so, the part would be named "Delta III 2.5m Fairing Base." I can confirm it has the SA5 variant.