Grumman

I'd like to see an update to the old one to go with the new one, since they really don't fit the same purpose, aesthetically.

Because that means removing a mission type from the game, and that is bad. Worlds without an atmosphere, worlds with an oxygenless atmosphere and worlds with an atmosphere where air-breathing engines function all pose different challenges with different solutions, so removing one of the three makes the game smaller.

You're assuming that dev team members are interchangeable. They aren't. Somebody who knows how to make meshes and skin them does not necessarily know how to write code to integrate KSP with the game engine, or vice versa. Having Porkjet sit around twiddling his thumbs isn't going to make the engine upgrade go any faster.

I like it too, but it's not an "improvement," it's an entirely different style of cockpit.

Do not do that. Community Resource Pack does not change the stock nuclear rocket, and so it shouldn't do it to the Pluto either. On the plus side I've got a nice line of SSTOs using a few of your parts:

Here's one of the prototypes for the SF-2 SSTOs I'm using at the moment: It uses two parts from the Mk2 Expansion mod - the Pluto nuclear rocket and the Manta air intake - because dedicated Mk2 parts are prettier than using Mk 1 parts on Mk 2 fuselages.

I don't want anything like this in the game. I suggested something like this in the Life Support thread in the suggestions sub-forum. My suggestion was simply that unhappy Kerbals eat more up to a certain limit (50% more? 100% more?), with stupid Kerbals getting more unhappy when they are alone (because they get bored) and not-brave Kerbals getting more unhappy when they don't have much in the way of living space (because they get claustrophobic). How much of a calculation footprint do these systems have? I do not want it and would much prefer to send a rover out to retrieve it, but I'm fine with ignoring it as long as it isn't causing bloat.

USI Sounding Rockets has 0.375m parts, including fuel tanks and engines. That small enough for you?

I will keep the backup, as I do with all mods and whatnot. Last time, I might have deleted the config file to force the game to rebuild it - I know that I've done this for ModuleManager, and the recommendation to do the same thing for one of KSP's config files seems familiar, but I cannot say for certain, since it's been a month and a half since it happened, if it did.

Thank you, that did fix the problem. Heat is now flowing correctly through the ship, and the nuclear rocket quickly dropped from its almost-exploding status.

The file was last modified on the 29th of June, the same day it was created. Beyond that, I could not tell you. It is installed in my Program Files (x86)/Steam/SteamApps/Common/ folder

I run the game by running KSP.exe from the main Kerbal Space Program folder. Looking at Physics.cfg, the values for skinSkinConductionFactor, skinInteralConductionFactor and shieldedConductionFactor are all 0. Would this be the cause of the problem?

Heat levels are not dropping. The surface temperature rises and falls with the sun, but the core temperatures are not changing at all on any of the parts - not on the nuke, the RAPIERs or on any of the other parts.

I have a spaceplane in orbit that has a nuclear rocket, a large stationary radiator and a small deployable radiator all connected to the same fuel tank. Despite having not one but two radiators, the rocket does not cool down at all, even over multiple orbits. Why?

In the SPH or VAB, right-click on the part. Does it day "Structural"? If so, the problem is that you haven't set it to what type of fuel it's meant to carry.

I would be in favour of unlocking increased reliability above the specifications (say 100% Impact Tolerance, Maximum Temperature and Breakdown Speed for experimental parts, and a per-part random 100-130% Impact Tolerance, Maximum Temperature and Breakdown Speed for parts that have actually been unlocked by the tech tree.) but your idea does not sound fun. This, on the other hand, seems like an interesting idea. By spending reputation to buy nuclear devices and then having it refunded on recovery, you'd get a nice little approximation of the nuclear worries. Fly it back to the KSC and recover it there? Get your reputation refunded. Land it in Northern Kerbistan? Some reputation loss. Crack one open on the nearest mountain? Significant reputation loss.

That's a lot more finicky than we want for stock life support - a bunch of new resources and three needs that need to be micromanaged. It would be better to just make it a simple "unhappy kerbals eat more" relationship, with unhappiness caused by claustrophobia (a combination of lack of living space and lack of bravery) and boredom (a combination of a lack of company and stupidity).

Laythe is already the most interesting place in the game, so adding two more biome types - underwater and on the sea bed - and a few parts for sea planes and for fillable ballast tanks would be very cool to have.

I've being adding parts from this mod piecemeal, and just got up to the first engine, the Pluto. It's definitely handy to have a nuclear rocket in the Mk2 form factor without the ridiculously long and back-heavy shape that comes from using the Mk1<->Mk2 adapter sections, but the exhaust FX could use some work, I think. The exhaust starts too far up the nozzle, I think, and there's some noticeable jaggies at the edges of the exhaust plume.

I'm doing a nothing but spaceplanes run. I cheated myself enough science and funds to unlock the spaceplane parts and went from there. I perform suborbital flights by taking off from the runway, pulling straight up and then coasting out of Kerbin's atmosphere when the engines cut out. I've currently got a two-seater SSTO and I am working on a 6-seater.

Can't you already do this via the "Rename Vessel" window? If anything, I suppose you'd be looking for a new option in that window, "Vessel on standby" or something like that.

USI Life Support gets my vote. It has a single resource (Supplies) that are converted into a single waste product (Mulch) which can be reprocessed by parts like greenhouses to prolong your supplies. It lets Kerbals go a reasonable amount of time without supplies (15 days) so that newbies don't have to worry about it until they've at least learned how to put a Kerbal in orbit. It does not kill Kerbals, only makes them go on strike, and does not affect the main four Kerbals, which means it's easier for a newbie to recover after making a mistake.

I just tested it and you don't even need that - all you need is the winch, the docking port and the RCS thrusters. Choose to control the ship from the docking port, turn off any reaction wheels or RCS nozzles that aren't on the drone, and you can then fly that docking port around using the regular controls, drawing RCS from the mothership as you do so.

Go into the /GameData/KAS/Parts/Winch# folder and open the Part.cfg file in Notepad. There is a line that says "maxLenght = #" that defines the maximum length of the winch cable.