cantab

On life support, I think if it is included it would be a good idea to remove the electricity requirements for probe cores. That way players would still have an option to send a mission where they don't need to worry about ending up unable to control the ship.

.18.3. The demo. Because without it I don't know if I'd have ended up playing KSP.

I would suggest "balancing" your fuel lines with a strut or a duplicate fuel line on the other side, that helps avoid unwanted rotation. Also avoid strutting to the ASAS units, they're notoriously flexible. You might also try mounting a probe core on the lower core stage, with the help of a cuboct strut, and control from that until it separates. This stops the SAS responding to and worsening any swaying of the upper part of the rocket.

How about a 45-foot yacht? OK, how about a 45-foot yacht with an attached nuclear-electric transfer stage delivering a delta-V of 44 km/s? Mission album: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZPThM9 No cheats used unless you call the enable part clipping option cheating.

More and funnier Kerbal reactions in the craft is a possibility. I can see why you'd want to do dumb stuff to see them, and it could be based on an overhauled Kerbal personality system that will in future govern more things.

Yeah, most things in KSP float, though exactly how much seems to be bafflingly arbitrary. Unfortunately most things are also very draggy, like the air only even worse. Radial intakes are popular for fast boats, and wings offer low drag too.

The terrain could still be modified. Divide the terrain polygon that's hit to make a hole and splice the crater in.

I had a rocket do a full end-over-end tumble in the ascent one time and carried on flying it to space.

I'll just leave this here.

The stock game limits "physics range" to just over 2 km. So you couldn't do it with a single ship without using a mod that increases that. If it was a single ship you might have problems with gravity not acting right on the ends, because I think KSP just uses the gravity at the CoM for every part so it doesn't factor in the different angle between the ends. Alternatively, you could build a pontoon bridge using multiple ships, each within the physics range limit. Making the gaps crossable might be a bit tricky but shouldn't be all that hard.

When you get your biggest ever ship into a suborbital trajectory in one piece fully fuelled, in the biggest lag fest of a launch you've ever endured, and then you realise it's got too few reaction wheels and is thus almost uncontrollable and you can't line it up for circularisation. (I made it in the end by throttling the engines up so their gimballing could turn the ship. It still handles like the Titanic in molasses even after the launcher was dropped.)

Sounds like a savefile bug; the ports can get stuck in a "confused" state where they won't dock. There should be a thread in the support forum with possible fixes.

Pop. This is in the Midlands.

Well the .23.5-style career has been preserved as "Science" mode. I believe .24 changed a few part figures, mainly buffs for things like the Mainsail. The biggest impact apart from career mechanics is probably mod compatibility. Most mods will be developed for .24 now, but there might be some that aren't compatible.

Gravity assist I would assume. Kerbin can give a pretty strong slingshot, especially as an unflown asteroid can get to 20 km or so before vanishing, which would cause a flown ship to land.

It does look depressingly like there isn't. There's "capsule" - a cylinder with a hemisphere on each end - but no sign of a simple cylinder.

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head there.

I did get it into orbit full, despite losing 9 of the 35 second-stage engines.Unfortunately I've found I really underdid it on the reaction wheels, and with no RCS at all it turns like the Titanic sailing in molasses. So now I'll have to either relaunch a modified version (not an appealing prospect), attach control sections with claws (major kraken-bait), or try and fly it as-is (maybe doable with timewarp abuse to stop rotation).

Yeah, you can get reasonably accurate by targeting CoM when you come in to claw. For general manouverability I like to dot a few control sections around the asteroid, each with their own claw, a couple of reaction wheels, and some RCS thrusters and tanks. Also, if you have a cluster of main engines, try seeing which way the asteroid wants to turn, then reducing the thrust limiters on the engine(s) on the "outside" of that turn.

Really missed my overclock. I had some issues with my PC last week and had to clear the CMOS, and now I've got this to launch. I may have to wimp out and send it up empty then fuel in orbit.

Probably. The stock aerodynamics make drag not depend on orientation, meaning sideslip doesn't increase drag like it does in real life, so it's less of a problem if your turns aren't fully co-ordinated.

It's a concern I share. Designing and flying the spacecraft is challenging enough, a complicated and difficult management sim on top of that I'm concerned won't work well. So far Squad seem to have avoided this by simply making the management side easy; I admit I've yet to play .24 but I hear many people get rolling in money, and even before .24 you could finish the tech tree from just the Mun and Minmus.I'm still looking forward to .25 though.

If the sound is loud enough, the entire Earth can become it's echo chamber. Eg the Krakatoa eruption.

Por que no los dos?

Overclocking with a locked multiplier depends on the processor family. For my old AMD Phenom II it works pretty well, largely because nothing actually runs at the "reference clock" so you just back off other multipliers to compensate. For modern Intel processors I believe it works less well, as you've found.