Nutter

Not really. Stayputnik might be a bit clunky for it, with its design, but they can still be dumped in an orbit that's in-between your launch and end goal. Or, perhaps, as a control for a a stable enough aerodynamic re-entry probe. Also, 0 torque and x-SAS can work for aerodynamic systems, or just sticking four small reaction nozzles on the nose. As for G-QBE; increased battery life, maybe? It's light and tough, so I'm sure that all factors in the aforementioned re-entry somewhere. Then again, probe batteries are almost worse than useless as far as their actual charges are concerned. Only seem to be handy if you have them as disabled emergency power, which usually doesn't have to be a large amount, either.

Yeah, don't bet too much on it, though. My main thought at the moment is how to make it sturdy enough that it doesn't just snap off after a tug. Thicker paper for that part maybe?

Considered thinking up a crude twist-locking mechanism? I would try to get one going myself, but I have enough attention span with the stuff I actually need done. Best I can think of at the moment, you'd have to think up a way of neatly and subtly getting it on onto an existing part. And convincing the connections to not fall apart when tugged on.

Oooohkay...whatever the cunning plan is, we need some of those!

Weeeeee! Long tanks and new Spinnakers oh my! I'm gonna be making so many six-engined cluster-urr-mess launchers with this! Cunning Plan; Somethingosmething radial something?

Here's something to consider, now that aerodynamics are more inclined to longer rockets; an extra length of fuel tanks in the .625 and 1.25 categories, perhaps? Or is there a stockalike mod that already does that that I've missed?

I too, wouldn't mind small parts early on. Especially since they're pretty handy for making low-payload boosters without overdosing on Oscars. Also, about engine/tank tech tree separataion: I don't mind it, since it's an extra excuse to have multi-engined stages. Though, I do admit, it's kinda problematic with interstage fairings.

If you have a thrust vectoring engine and a high thrust-weight ratio, clamping down on the gimbal range also seems to work.

So, you effectively made a pancake of boosters and you're trying to toss it with the wide end forwards. The game is fine, it's just your rocket that's a crime unto aerodynamics. Heck, why do you even need six fleas for your first launch anyhow? If you're that desperate for more boosters!â„¢, just spend a few seconds running around the KSC with a notepad and a goo canister! Well, in case you're not disinclined on modding; Infernal Robotics might help with clustering your kit tighter inside of it. Though, that might require a severe redesign. But, if you are, there's probably still stuff you can cut. Guessing you could ditch at least a few of the engines, if you already have whole clusters of them. If you have redundant equipment, it might be a good candidate for the chopping block, and, if nothing else works, you could just redesign the whole ruddy thing for orbital assembly. Yes, with enough effort, that includes radially attached engines, but you'll probably need some sort of Frankensteined docking port assembly.

In that case, did you go and check it's thrust and mass alignment? From the materials lab and drill, I'm guessing the thing is at least partially asymmetrical. Are the long girders massless, by the way?

I think it has something to do with the interstage fairings that appear on them and some rocket engines if you attach an object (like a decoupler) underneath them. At the very least, they seem to be the only times you can observe it, but I think you can only actually see it used on the LV-N with it's two-part fairing that doesn't attach to the decoupler.

1.0 has less drag and reentry heating is more intense, but really, I think the former applies more to planes than rockets, and those did look a bit over the top in 1.0. And as for the latter...well, you can probably still use that heat shield to make sure you won't die horribly in your capsule, but I heard planes are a mite easier to land by comparison.

-Doesn't really matter on the first stage, since it's also where the thrust comes from. And with lighter loads, you can even get away with putting them on the uppers. -Can be pretty easily fixed or mitigated by offsetting them juuuust right, and if all else, a sepratron is only expensive in part count, but only really needed when you're flying some proper massive abominations anyhow. Though, I will nitpick; an "Ares I" style lifter has carried many a Kerbal past the skies beyond. Even if only counting mine. -Point, but you generally don't want to do that in their natural habitat of "Just off the pad'" anyhow unless you seriously miscalculated something. -Which is a bit of a shame, really. There could be at least a couple non-mod gimballed ones for the extra amusement factor. Though, again, thrust vectoring isn't exactly an efficient use of resources when you can use a whole lot of winglets!â„¢ instead. So, really, they're the best part in of the game!

What would we need those for? We're trying to do science here, not babysit kerbals! ...in fact, dispensing with the landing gear's added drag would be a great idea for that approach!

Climb to max operational altitude, dive to gain speed, then fling yourself on a ballistic trajectory, kicking in the rockets as your engine stalls? Guessing you should be able to to get ~5km that way without a serious issue. But you'll need to time the manoeuvre right, and I'm guessing you might need to make sure the plane can handle it.

I don't think this has been mentioned: Beta - I sure do like using this dinky cute upper stage engine for everything! 1.0 - WHY WON'T YOU BUDGE OFF THE PAD!?

Since the new atmosphere and fuel flow reworks kind of put a greater emphasis on the difference, what are the odds of being able to tag individual stages as atmospheric in the VAB display? Yeah, I know it's mostly an insignificant difference that's fairly simple to do manually anyhow, but still.

It doesn't. Best you can hope for is attaching one end to a node, and strutting the other end down solid. You'll need mods if you want to get your cargo back the same way, though. You could try some of that multiple-docking-nodes magery, but that would require a painfully snug fit, and would probably end up with your payload permanently stuck in the bay.

That doesn't sound like the wet noddle-wiggle KJR solves. a) He said it only happens on ship (re-)load, rather than launch, Given the description, the ship spontaneously starts to oscillate, before being disintegrated by ever greater phantom forces.

Do you happen to clip certain parts inside of your ships, perhaps? I've had a whole boatload of problems like that loading ships from a save or from the tracking station until about a week ago. But I also had Kerbal Joint reinforcement installed, so might not be so similar after all, since it seems to have stopped after I ditched it.

That's a non-issue for him, since he's using FAR.

You could skip the whole 'pure SSTO' and still stick some disposable RATO units onto the thing anyway. Yeah, yeah, probably not applicable for various challenges, and you'll have to recover the thing to get it flying again. But screw it; sepratrons and separators are so cheap they might as well be inconsequential in any case, no?

Note: Having an RLA subfolder in GameData will have the same effect.

Well, if you're willing to rework the thing after economy is implemented, I'd say the very end with very heavy or experimental rocketry. Otherwise...Advanced Metalworks or thereabouts?

If you need big tanks to go with your RCS thrusters, you're most likely actually using them wrong. And if you're referring to the arcjet, it's neither an ion engine, nor shaped like a "You know what," unless you mean it in the vaguest meaning possible, in which case you've been playing with Cigars ever since you pressed 'play' and should really have a talk with a bearded man named 'Sigmund.'