Giggleplex777

One of the largest rockets I've ever built, the ULV-200: It has a maximum capacity of 200 tonnes to 100km orbit (as its name suggests) and is almost as tall as the VAB.

You should rotate one of the turbojets so that its petals can be seen. Something like this guy's engine: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121014-KAAB-37-Thunderbolt-%28SAAB-37-Viggen-Replica%29

Two boosters are too much and more expensive for the job, so they just use one. Also, none of the Atlas V booster configurations are symmetrical.

The Vulcan is a Soviet/Russian rocket.

You should try building this behemoth: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ur700a.html

It's supposed to be better than the LV-N. There are many players that think the LV-N is underpowered the nuclear lightbulb should be enough to satisfy them. Even then, the lightbulb has its own limitations. It's quite heavy and will most definitely be extremely expensive. Also remember that it could be rebalanced if the devs wanted to.

You can adjust the fuel levels in the VAB and remove the oxidizer. The fuel that real nuclear rockets use is liquid hydrogen, which has very low density and requires large tanks, so having low density tanks in KSP is not unrealistic.

A better suggestion would be adding the Atomic Age engines into the game. A LFO nuclear engine would be the LANTR, and if you really want performance you could use the nuclear lightbulb.

I'm thinking they're the ore drills. The grey parts are probably fuel cell arrays.

I can build something; just tell me what you want.

I don't think the fairings should be modeled after steel though.

There are a lot more overpriced/underpriced stuff in the VAB. It's quite disappointing that these issues have not been revolved, as they can severely affect gameplay and have been around for many updates.

The main problem I have for the fairings is that they are way too heavy for smaller rockets. A 1.25m fairing should not have a wall 5cm thick. Assuming that the fairing wall is 0.3cm thick, the volume of a 1.25m by 1.25m fairing is 1.25*1.25*À*0.003 = 0.0147m^3. Steel has a density of approximately 7850kg/m^3 (depends on the steel), which is about 3 times more than aluminum, but keep in mind that steel is stronger too. The mass of the steel fairing should be 0.0147*7850 = 115kg or 0.115t. I'm on my phone so I don't know how heavy the fairings are in KSP, but I'm sure they're heavier than that. Edit: A 1.25m by 1.25m fairing weighs 0.33t in KSP, or 2 times as heavy as comparable fairing made out of steel should be. If we assume that the stock fairings are 0.3cm thick, they would be denser than lead. ^Note that the fairing base is 0.4m tall, making the total height ~1.25m+0.4m=1.7m. Vega's fairings are made of aluminium and are 7.9m tall and 2.6m in diameter with a mass of 0.490t (source). Kerbals aren't that behind in their rocket technology, so there should be no excuse to make the fairings so heavy. I say that this is conclusive evidence that the fairings are too heavy.

Are you using 1.0.2? The fairings have mass now, and even a small 1.25m fairing weighs 1t.

The fiasco that was 1.0.1 was mostly the fault of the devs, not the testers. They rushed a hotfix (that missed several glaring issues) and also decided to make some drastic changes regarding aerodynamics and fairings, all in one week. I doubt that the testers got a chance to thoroughly play the game to realize how the new atmosphere was a step backwards from that of 1.0 or how the fairings are heavier than cargo bays. While I welcome the bugfixes, the unnecessary changes to the atmosphere and fairings were, well, unnecessary and hindered gameplay. A shortsighted decision the backfired on SQUAD.

I was content with 1.0, but SQUAD made some unnecessary changes in 1.0.2 that left me on the fence on which version I want to play. I want to be able to share crafts that work with the latest version but I can't make good vehicles in 1.0.2.

I feel like this decision was a slight oversight because it can really screw with spaceplanes. Perhaps an option to set the jet engine's fuel fuel-draining behavior could be the solution.

WinterOwl explained what's wrong with the new atmo here:

More on the overweight fairings: Here's the largest cargo bay: It is 10.3m long and 3.75m in diameter (despite what the engineer's report says). 6.0 tonnes. Now, here's a similarly-sized fairing: 7.4 tonnes(!). If this isn't broken then I don't know what is.

How's the payload capacity with the much heavier fairings? I have a feeling that it would be quite a hindrance.

These fairings are too damn heavy! The Falcon 9 v1.1 fairing is 5.2m in diameter, 13.1m long and weighs 1.75 tonnes. Source: http://www.spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-v11.html If you were to build a similarly sized fairing in KSP, it weighs 12.5 tonnes, or more than 7 times heavier than the real life F9 one. Combined with the amount of drag the fairings create, they actually hinder the performance of your rocket. Seriously, who thought that it was a good idea to make the fairings out of solid lead? They should either make the fairings lighter or revert back to the way they were in 1.0.

Well, it's been one week and I haven't gotten a reply from HarvesteR yet. sigh.

SRBs got more neglect in 1.0. That was very disappointing.

That was pre-nerf. I'm thinking 290s with the new stats. The PAM-D has an Isp of 292s.

Sorry, I meant that its stats are rubbish. It's practically useless outside of the first flight.