cantab

I vaguely recall reading the fuel flow through the tri-couplers was made one way on purpose, to stop issues with uneven fuel drainage. In your second example, if fuel did flow all ways through the tri-couplers and no other changes were made you might find two of the tanks drained fully before the third started emptying, which would really send your rocket off course, and be somewhat counter-intuitive to diagnose. Of course, it does mean arrangements like this, despite not having the apparent loop issue, won't work either. (And before anyone asks, no it's not the lander can blocking the flow. Fuel flows through that just fine.)

A rover cabin like the one on the Space Exploration Vehicle. External seats are fun and all, but larger rovers might like an actual crew space. It could have no torque as well, to avoid the problems that sometimes causes for rovers. Besides rovers, I can see people putting it on planes and helicopters thanks to the excellent visibility.

I still say kuid. But I'll be happy with anything as long as it's not called credits. Or kredits. I hate that sci-fi cliche.

Can you simply dock a rocket sideways to it and push it along the surface?

If there are four boosters attached, the one nearest to the camera is clearly off-centre. That won't help. Did you use symmetry and angle snap - the two icons above those for showing CoM/L/T - when placing the parts? Complete loss of control without any input from yourself is a sign that something about the rocket is off-balance. Since your design doesn't look like it's got any need to be asymmetric, the best option is to correct the issue.

IIRC the KSC, Launcpad, and Runway biomes aren't supposed to show up in the air. So getting them is a bug basically. This I would like to see fixed at some point, being as it's another clear bug and somewhat exploitable.

I'd love to use Kerbin time. Unfortunately alexmoon's launch window planner uses Earth time, and I need it to make my interplanetary missions.

Indeed. I'm sure we all pressed Up+B* back in the day. *Other key combinations are available.

The latter. I started the save, then immediately exited out. Deleted the asteroids that were there (because they'd be somewhere else in several years time, I expected), and changed the time to a random number somewhere between 1 and 100 kyears (in seconds obv).The idea was to mix up the launch windows rather than having the same set you always get to start with.

The change in orbital period is only 0.2 percent, I think there must be some other reason if you're having big launch window discrepancies and it's still early in the game clock. Possibly the change to using Kerbin time rather than Earth time by default. Once I set my game to use Earth time, alexmoon's orbit window planner is working just fine, and this is in a save that I threw forward to Earth year 27. Now if I went to something like year 2014, then the differences might get big enough to notice.

What sal said. You can see this clearly if you omit the decouplers, only one of the engines will have a shroud round it. The usual solution is some cubic octagonal struts (or any other protruding part) on the tanks above and below, and regular struts joining them. You can just about see what I mean on the screenshot of my Tycho lifter.

Surely if you're with one, they won't.

2.5 m versions of the Stack Bi-, Tri, and Quad-Couplers. Especially the Bi-Coupler, since you can't really do a twin stack otherwise. 3.75 m to 5x and 7x 1.25m adapters. That would be nice for various things. And yes I know it can be done with cuboct struts, but a real adapter will look better. The separate engines and base structures from the new engine cluster and LFB.

The old fashioned way is to move the rescue ship up to him, then keep switching to the Kerbal in the hope of being able to grab onto a ladder. The new way is THE CLAAAAAAW.

I believe that SAS is included in all command modules except the external seat. If you want SAS on a ship that has only external seats and don't want to add a probe core for whatever reason, you'll need the Inline Advanced Stabiliser or the ASAS Module Large, not just a reaction wheel.

As I understand it it's not possible for an auto-captured asteroid to be stable long term. If it was captured thanks to the Mun or Minmus, it must cross near their orbit and will sooner or later make a pass again. If it's aerobraked, it will keep aerobraking down every orbit until it hits Kerbin. Of course, you can stabilise the orbit with an appropriate nudge yourself.

The claw is pretty cool and all, but I've swiftly become a firm fan of the new long SRB, the "S1 SRB-KD25k". The length makes it "look right" on bigger rockets, and the high thrust makes it perform right too. It also makes a great simple first stage for smaller rockets. There's just a pleasing elegance in popping a little probe on top and getting it nearly to orbit just like that, no fuss or complication. And despite giving massively more thrust than any other 1.25 m part, it hasn't come in for the balance criticisms the new liquid engines have. The limitations of an SRB keep it balanced, I feel.

That sounds ... seriously annoying.

Are these two scorings not a problem together? The points you gain for a higher docking will be lost twice over for a necessarily higher apoapsis.Or is it deliberate that higher apoapses are always penalised, but they're penalised less if you make the docking later?

I started a new save. Nominally it's in Career, but I just hacked in a load of science and unlocked everything, then zeroed the science points again. So it's basically Sandbox, except that I can still earn science if I want.

Those are some pretty neat missions. My plan is for a minimalistic multiple flyby probe, the Smith 2, named after economist Adam Smith. VAB shot: I've stripped it down as minimalistic as I can go. $600 for a reaction wheel is way too expensive on a rocket that only costs $2690 (not including the science experiments), so it's launched canted over 5 degrees and flies ballistically, the capsule torque offering a degree of control over the apoapsis. $600 for a launch clamp is also too expensive The actual delta-V figures are 4377 in the booster and 3661 in the probe, KER gets confused. The probe has to do the circularisation and the transfer burns, but will have loads left for manoeuvring after. Science is temperature and gravity. Despite the high price of the gravity detector, I believe it will pay for itself in returned science. No other experiments were viable, being either single use or useless in space. So far I have 0 science, since it's still sitting in the parking orbit and I've been doing other stuff in the save. (But careful not to do any science!) I'm planning on sending it to Eve at the right time to use Eve's gravity for an inclination change to match Moho, and I want to make a Mun flyby on the way out into the bargain.

I likewise have a plan for an asteroid base (of a sort) but it was going to be in Kerbin orbit.Is it OK to assemble it in Kerbin orbit then push it out of the SOI for the photo op?

From what I've heard, yes. The claw behaves like any docking port, the asteroid behaves like any part, once docked it's all one ship. Indeed, some have said that's invaluable when wrangling big asteroids. Claw a whole bunch of SAS+RCS probes to different points and it will become somewhat more controllable.

Must not have spaces in the name, I think.

It looks to me like all three are using mod parts, so bear that in mind. IIRC there's a thread with construction techniques. But a few hints and tips: Build in the spaceplane hangar if you want bilateral symmetry, in the VAB if you want radial symmetry. You can save a subassembly in one and load it in the other, letting you combine things. The Cubic Octagonal Strut is godly. You can basically attach anything to anything at any angle with it. And it's massless and dragless so won't throw your ship off balance. The debug menu can be opened in the VAB/SPH (Alt+F12, or Right Shift+F12 for Linux players) and allows you to enable part clipping. This lets you freely put parts intersecting each other, giving you more design freedom. When you aren't part clipping, sometimes it takes a few goes to get a part in place. Trying different orders can help. Remember you can use parts for purposes they weren't intended for. A classic example is clipping the tail connectors into the bottom of a fuel tank and mounting engines on them, which gives an elegant five-engine cluster.