blowfish

You should take a look at mass rather than volume - LH2 takes a lot more volume of tank, but the overall mass of the rocket will be less for the same delta-v. Especially helps for upper stages, where having a lighter stage means you need a lot less booster to get it there.

Post it on Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, etc, share it publicly, and post the link.

If you're using Steam and you haven't messed with things, KSP is probably installed at something like C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\

My recollection is that it would have flown without the 6K stage for LEO missions, but then it's more of a 2nd stage, yeah

I think you're confusing Vega (canceled upper stage for Atlas) with Vega (all-solid LV flown by ESA)

Did you find the KSP installation and the log isn't there, or can you not find the installation?

Welcome to the forums! Please see the "How to get support" link in my signature - it will tell you how to debug any of the common things causing this issue, and if none of those work, how to find and upload KSP's log, which I can inspect to see what might be going on.

Yes, in this case the relevant data isn't even stored on the part. Didn't realize there was general handling for part fields on this module though, thanks for making me look into that

That's not possible. The upgrade system was really only designed to affect part modules, not fields on the part itself. I looked at the way FAR does this and it turns out you don't even need to use MM - you can just add another cfg file with a FARPartModuleTransformExceptions node and FAR will load them all

Add an issue at Github so I don't forget and I'll take a look when I have time

It actually does disable Tweakscale on all AJE engines. I can't say why camlost originally decided to not support tweaksacle, but it definitely sounds like a weird thing to do to real engines. For instance, does mass scale with (scale^2) (keeping TWR constant) or (scale^3) keeping density constant?

Nice engine! A couple of nitpicks though: It seems like the exhaust duct is just coming out of the mount, which doesn't really makes sense. The turbine is directly below the pumps and it should come out of there. What's with the 4th pipe coming at an angle from the upper part of the engine? Any chance that the exhaust nozzle could actually provide roll control? I guess most people don't really think about it in KSP due to the silly way reaction wheels work, but I think it would be nice. The engine and gimbal setup required for this isn't terribly complicated. Is the texture using baked AO? There are a few of corners that I would expect to be darkened by AO that don't seem to be. I think that baked AO really brings a lot of depth to a model Here's a pretty good view of the turbomachinery on the real thing:

Makes sense for KSP. Would it be possible to have the retro package as a separate model though? I imagine that RO will probably want to keep the original sequence.

Looks a bit fuzzy, but my best guess is something like this: Retro rocket package is fired to deorbit, then jettisoned (this is the cylindrical part) The orientation package (upper conical part) stays attached through re-entry, then is jettisoned to reveal the parachutes and landing rockets underneath Diagram seems to show it without the parachutes and landing rockets after landing? Not sure why this would be though.

Equivalent PDF for bipropellant thrusters, just for completeness: http://www.rocket.com/files/aerojet/documents/Capabilities/PDFs/Bipropellant Data Sheets.pdf

@ItsSeanBroleson isn't that part from Ven's Stock Revamp? At any rate, the hatch is purely visual.

Sorry all, but there will be no new or modified assets for the foreseeable future. All of the original artists are gone, and I am not an artist (or not a very good one at least, and I certainly don't have time to improve my skills right now). So for now changes will be limited to balance and behavior tweaks. New parts and modified textures are not currently possible. If someone wants to contribute on this front they are welcome to, however. I'll look into whether these parts are behaving correctly.

Yeah the difference was definitely a lot more in the old (pre-1.0) stock aero.

The effect on pure rockets isn't going to be that much (drag losses are pretty low either way). That is, unless you have a really high liftoff TWR.

No idea about KF, and you will definitely find SSTU parts that have compatibility issues. But at the very least the engines and tanks should work.

All the SSTU-RO compatibility is on the RO side. Some folks have worked to make a lot of SSTU compatible, though I wouldn't say 100% yet.

Looks good to me!

Multiple locations/computers? Heh, try 3 different platforms. I managed to get B9 Part Switch compiling on my Windows desktop, OSX laptop, and Linux CI environment (release always happens from the CI environment though which makes things a bit easier, I only have to be able to compile and run tests on the other two platforms)

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why including 7zip in the repo would be a requirement for using it?

Yeah, the command line unzip utility seems to be fine too, I guess it's something they just overlooked when writing the archive utility.