King Arthur

Just saying, the KR-2L is a relatively poor choice for an SSME when you consider its abysmal ISP at sea level.

If I see a headless chicken I'm going to call it a headless chicken, not sugarcoat it and say that's a rooster of prime genetic heritage, and a headless chicken is precisely what NASA is right now with the lack of any solid long-term roadmap. I ultimately don't care where in particular we are going, be it the Moon, Mars, Venus, an asteroid, or god damn Alpha Centauri. I care about the fact that we need a long-term plan that we stick to for what we will be doing. The Space Race had a clear long-term plan for landing men on the Moon before the Soviets and we worked to accomplish that mandate, but today we have NASA and the US government who have a very bad case of ADD not being able to decide on anything long-term and flinging out ideas left and right. "We're going back to the Moo-- no we're going to Mar-- actually how about an asteroid in Lunar orbi-- seriously this idea about Venus is... wait, what were we sayin--OOOOOOOH SHINY". And now you expect me to take them seriously? Wake me up when we're actually serious about doing whatever it is we will be doing. I'm pretty sure we would die on Venus.

My apologies for asking this Sarbian, but you'd be the most knowledgable about this than anyone else. Is the km_gimbal extension still compatible with the update to km_gimbal and the SSE pack that you pushed out just a while ago? Many thanks for maintaining all these mods, gratitude cannot be adequately stated in mere words.

Windowed mode. You said you couldn't be hassled to remember all the timestamps on your save files, I presented you a solution. If you don't use the information your operating system is more than happy to present you with, well, that's your loss.

Can I suggest that the text at http://teachergaming.com/kerbalmissionlibrary be changed to black text instead of that pale-gray text? It would greatly improve readability.

You know what else is causing havoc? NASA's (and by extension the US government's) complete lack of any solid long-term roadmap or a plan. Just a few weeks back when the Orion launched NASA was trumpeting manned missions to Mars (which currently aren't yet funded or even planned) and artificially-retrieved asteroids (which are planned but dubious). And now suddenly we're talking about going to Venus? Yeah, wake me up when they actually have an idea what the hell they're doing.

Windows keeps a timestamp of all files, including your quicksaves. Also, keep many saves. It's the first rule for using computers. Save save save save save save save save save save save save save and then backup the backups of your saves.

I lost it at Negishima. Keep it up! (￣▽￣)ノ

Best suggestion I've ever read about career mode.

If we're going that way the only real answer to what LF can be is kerosene since kerosene is used both as rocket fuel and jet fuel just like our LF is used by both our rocket and jet engines. And since LF can only be answered as kerosene, the natural answer to our oxidizer is LOX.

I personally attribute fuel not boiling off to reasons of development simplicity just like how the LV-N runs off LF/O despite being an NTR. Basing arguments of what LF/O actually is on gameplay mechanics that aren't likely fully implemented isn't going to mean much. And even presuming that fuel (LF/O) not boiling off is fully working as intended, there still remains the question whether "room temperature" on Kerbin is "Earth room temperature" or "room temperature that still maintains Earth-cryogenic fuels in a liquid state". Basically, Kerbals aren't launching from Earth. What is cryogenic for us might not be cryogenic to them, anything we debate right now is essentially unfounded guesswork.

There are cryogenic engines that can restart like the RL-10 and J-2/J-2X, so KSP engines having the capability to restart on demand doesn't exempt cryogenic fuel mixes. On the topic of restartable engines, that's another avenue of realism that can merit an entire thread of its own.

As far as UDMH, that stuff is extremely toxic. Given how many rockets the Kerbals launch and seeming lack of any negative effects from them I have always entertained the idea that the LF/O the Kerbals use is in fact LH2/LOX and/or Kerosene/LOX depending on the engine. With regards to ISP, I believe the lifter engines are fine as they are right now though our upper stage engines could possibly use a buff. The SSME (which the LV-T30/45 seem to base themselves off of, at least visually) have an ISP range of 366~452, so the 320~370 range that many of our lifter engines have isn't unreasonable. On the side of upper stage engines, the RL-10 has an ISP of up to 465 in vacuum, this means if anything our vacuum engines like the Poodle, LV-909, and KR-2L are underpowered being capped at 390 (380 in the case of KR-2L).

Alright, this has been itching at my OCD too much after it's been incorrectly repeated too many times. The primary reason for using hypergolic rocket fuels is because they spontaneously combust when they come into contact with each other, requiring no external source of ignition and meaning they are simple and reliable. Being liquid at room temperature is a handy secondary trait that most hypergolic rocket fuels tend to have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant

There's an old saying: Jack of all trades, master of none. It's certainly possible to design a single craft that can be versatile in the things it can do, but inevitably the design process will be harder (the F-35 Lightning II is a particularly bad example of this) and its performance in any given thing will almost always be inferior if compared to a craft that was specifically designed for a specific purpose.

All good, honest mistakes happen even to the best of us. Please let us know when you have the source code sorted out, I'm sure the forum moderators and others using this mod will appreciate it.

You need to visualize the internal arrangement of your crafts as a "tree" with all parts attaching to and branching off from one single part, usually the part you place down first. This part is the "root", like the root in a real-life tree. The root command in the VAB/SPH redesignates which part in your craft is this "root" part, thereby helping you immensely with more complicated crafts and/or where subassemblies come into play.

Then use that and move on. "Creative part CFG copying and editting" literally only involved making a double-sized copy of the stock landing gear to get me through until Porkjet and co. can get around to releasing bigger landing gears at a later date. What you see in my screenshots there is otherwise stock Mk3 parts. I highly doubt simple shapes by themselves are copyrightable material. And anyway, I just literally pointed out right in front of you that the HL compatibility was a cooperative effort, you're literally crying over nothing. And now you're comparing apples to oranges. KW Rocketry is completely and utterly unrelated to B9 or Porkjet/Squad. Lighten up and stop rustling your jimmies over nothing. Sheesh.

I didn't feel like going through 6 pages of drivel, so I'll just leave this here: 1. The old Mk3 parts do not conflict with the new Mk3 parts, you can easily drop them in from your 0.25 (or prior) install into your 0.90 install and they'll work just fine. 2. The new Mk3 parts are amazing for what they are designed to do. With a bit of imagination and some creative part CFG copying and editting, I managed to pull this off: http://imgur.com/a/A4U3W#0 3. As far as I understand there was cooperation between Porkjet and B9 maintainers which resulted in HL compatibility. This is a good thing. Don't see why you (OP) are complaining.

If you can provide logs that would help immensely in figuring out the problem.

Quoting the Add-on Posting Rules for context: I just noticed that the source code that you are providing in your latest 0.90 archive may not be up-to-date with recent changes. The copy of GNcap.cs in your latest archive for 0.90 is identical to the copy of GNcap.cs in your previous archives for 0.25, in spite of the changes you made to the GN Condenser (GNcap) part that removed GN particle conversion/generation. The Part CFGs remain largely the same, so I presume this change was made in the source code for the plugin DLL somewhere. I have also noticed a discrepancy with debug messages. Even through the GN Drive (GNdrive) part does not write any debug log entries with the newest archive, code in GNdrive.cs for writing debug log entries is clearly present and working (not commented out or removed). Did you mix things up while you were packaging the archive, or did you make these changes somewhere else? I'm pointing this out because I don't want to see you or this mod possibly get into trouble by breaking any rules. :x

But the Kerbal X is sensible and Mun-capable, you just need to fly it right. And honestly, the Kerbal X is a marvel of Kerbal engineering in my opinion. It is easy to handle and its design gives you an introduction to asparagus staging and fuel flow in general.

Are you (OP) referring to the Learstar A1? While the Learstar itself is rubbish it can launch and get to orbit without any problem, you just need to be mindful of individual engine thrust levels unlike an ordinary rocket.

They did. They're called fuel tanks.

http://xkcd.com/1172/