Wanderfound

It's balanced in part by the difficulty options. If you're playing on hard mode without reverts, you're unlikely to have the spare cash for outsourced R&D, especially once the cost of unlocking tech nodes kicks in. I'm having to scrape a balnce between money, science and rep.

Windows, 32 bit, KSP25. Uninstalled for now; just letting you know that there may be some issues.

I'd prefer it stays in...so long as the "big feature" that destructible buildings was a lead-up to is construction, and among the construction options are reinforced and supersized runways.

Yup. Mk3 is for 1.25m + stuff, not 2.5m. Unfortunately, Mk3 at the moment doesn't do either. Be nice if Mk3 could take a Mk1 fold-wing plane, though.

So, I've played a couple of hours on the new career mode. FAR and Mechjeb (for flight data) and not much else. Settings are on hard mode with revert and quickload re-enabled; I don't revert design and normal piloting disasters, but I do revert "oops, didn't mean to bump the spacebar just then" and similar. Money is tight; an early launch failure nearly wiped me out. I had enough for another mission, but a foolish expenditure of funds on R&D left me so tight that I had to cut the mission back to bare-bones and cross my fingers. The Kerman brothers are all alive, but I did lose one of the expendable orbital floaters when an improvised two-seater rescue capsule broke in half after parachute deployment. This didn't help my rep any. I looked into the assorted management strategies, but the startup costs of the ones I wanted were prohibitive. However, I've finally managed to scrape enough rep out of part testing contracts to set up a low-level unpaid internship program in the research labs. Now I just have to get my battery and solar tech going, then it's off to the Mun...

Tried spreading the load with extra landing gear?

DRE is throwing an incompatibility warnng on my new install, unfortunately. Occurs on my lightly-modded real game and my clean-except-for-DRE test install. New version of DRE, downloaded today.

Toolbar is throwing an incompatible warning on mine as well. The Easter Egg zombies seem to be appearing more than they should as well. Latest version, downloaded today. The warning only shows on my modded (Mechjeb, Ferram, Editor Extensions , RCS Build Aid, Contracts +, PartAngleDisplay, Extended Trim) install. On a clean-except-for-Toolbar one, no warning, but still getting the Easter Egg screen every time.

No idea what .25 will bring, but the SP+ wings are designed to clip each other. You can make those black lines go away engirely by just placing the wings a smidgeon closer to each other. You also don't need your wings to be anywhere near that big.

Ideas for all of your gravity assisted rapid combustion experimenting needs: * Bombs designed to pack as tightly as possible into SP+ bays and release smoothly. * Timers to allow SRB-based things to be dropped and then ignited at a chosen later time. * Timers for bomb detonation to allow airbursts or penetrators. * Fuel air bombs with little parachutes that hold them while they spray. * Some way to allow the feed from a bomb-mounted RPM camera to keep displaying in the cockpit until impact. * Non-destructive droppable things: relief supplies (also with little parachutes), tanks of firefighting foam, navigation beacons, lifeboats, fuel caches, lithobraked science probes, etc.

Well, for the first thing: why do you want that much wing? That thing already has more than it needs. You've also got too much LF and not enough O. The first thing I'd do is toss four of the six lateral LF tanks, lengthen the neck with some LFO tanks and a service bay and change the super-canard to a normal one. Also: stock aero? So it can't be a Ferram-related aerodynamic failure? Finally: have you visually inspected the wings just to make sure that the struts are still there? If you strut wings then move them, sometimes the struts will disappear on one side. BTW, a gentle takeoff is about minimising your AoA, not which set of controls you use. Keep the nose within 20° of prograde, the closer the better. Lead the plane, don't drag it.

Okay: do you have the small radial motors yet? If so, I'd suggest an engine setup similar to what's on the Graduate​. Having the central motor be an air-breathing one is a substantial advantage.

An essential question that I'm not sure has been addressed: does .25 include Mk2 spaceplane shaped decouplers?

Build a space station with a Battlestar Galactica ​landing bay.

TaranisElsu, I wasn't criticizing, I was just clarifying that my understanding of the spreadsheet was correct. I'm glad to hear that TAC-LS is more realistic than I thought it was.

Somewhat north of Mach 6, in fact. Doing this is largely an exercise in patience; build a basic jet and skim the top of the atmosphere for as long as possible. And it definitely needs separate leaderboards for FAR/NEAR. Deadly Reentry shouldn't matter at these altitudes.

BTW, it's also possible to do perfectly good winglet-only aircraft without stacking them: Lifting-body fuselages do make that easier, though.

It's a matter of burning or RCS translating until your target and target prograde markers coincide and holding them there until impact. I usually find it easiest to get up to speed and roughly aligned on the main engines, then point the nose at the target and use RCS translation for fine tuning. It's just high-speed docking, and the techniques are the same. The closer you get to the target, the bigger the angles involved, so unless you are 100% perfectly on target it will look like the target prograde marker is moving away from the target marker. The target isn't moving and your course is straight (ish, orbiting); the navball effect is just trigonometry. Translate or burn to push the markers back together. The later you apply corrective control inputs, the more vigorous they'll need to be. Using powerful manoeuvring thrusters (Vernors or spammed RCS) may help. And quicksave on approach so you can practice repeated shots until you've got it. Also: if you're just testing the station, why not use Whack-a-Kerbal?

The "punishment" discussed is only a couple of thousand √ or a few rep/science points. If you don't want to deal with it, disable it in the options screen or set your management to maintain science and rep at the cost of √ and stash a bit in the bank before you warp.

You may want to have a look at this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93347-The-Vomit-Comet-(YASPC)

So: who's up for making a ModuleManager patch or somesuch to re-credit the new parts to Porkjet Industries? What would you like as your flag, Sir Porcinus?

You don't. I'm assuming stock aero? https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0 Three engines, two intakes, makes orbit easily. Fast climb to 15,000m, slow climb to 30,000m, turn the RAPIERs off as soon as they switch modes and don't turn them back on until the turbojet chokes. Or see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1357777&viewfull=1#post1357777 for the FAR-tuned version.

The expense of launchpad repair combined with the temptation to trade funds for science may finally add some budget constraints, too. Especially on the harder settings. I wonder if they've polished the contracts at all?

PS: to take a Microlander to the Mun, use a Miniboost with its engine replaced with a second docking port.

Now that asteroids hitting your space centre is an actual threat, is there any way for DRE to gradually ablate them on the way in?