damerell

You can do this yourself (and if the maintainer is unwilling to, that's the way forward).

Nice one; that's a very minimalist rover...

Let me give you an alternative suggestion, as a relatively recent convert - don't. Yeah, TACLS has the extra resources, but what does that add? You try and pack the same endurance in all of them (and parts conveniently come offering just that) - they might as well be one resource. TACLS kills kerbals - so does USI-LS if configured to do so. TACLS has recyclers - USI-LS with MKS has a wide range of options. TACLS looks challenging, but kerbals just don't eat that much so one easily just oversupply; the habitation requirements on USI-LS offer a much deeper challenge, and one that varies more with length of voyage than just slapping on another TACLS can does. I miss the hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells one got with TACLS - split water in daylight to bank solar energy for later - but you know what? That only works because KSP solar is absurdly, impossibly, good. It just wouldn't make sense in reality to carry the electrolyser's mass to recover a tiny handful of joules.

I think to a degree there's an expectation that life support mods with carbon dioxide supply their own air recyclers, and perhaps they vary enough that Universal Storage can't have one that's a sensible fit with all the mods you might use it with. LF by itself can be used with jets on Laythe (or Kerbin) but also works without oxidiser in NTRs such as the LV-N.

If the existing version still works, it's only necessary to inform the CKAN people of that so they can correct the metadata, not to recompile it.

Well, what we'd like to measure is the mass per kerbal, leaving aside the mass of the part devoted to other functions.This is a hard problem to solve in general...

I hope the operation is mass-neutral, since the material kits are consumed.

It's a while since we've seen one of these. Mun is a good size - not such a slog as Kerbin, but at least it's got some gravity to stick you down sometimes.

I'm not saying this is what is to blame here, especially since the OP isn't clear on whether it's the US parts that are too small or the Kerbalism parts, but one potential problem is that TACLS by default has realistic consumption for tiny kerbal bodies. There could easily be a mismatch with a mod intended to have realistic mass requirements for life support for humans.

Not to be Captain Obvious, but (to the OP) you can also reduce the wing mass and strength in FAR. A plane to fly at very slow speeds can benefit from this so its huge wing area doesn't have a huge mass (needing more lift and hence more speed and defeating the point of the exercise) and if you're only going to fly it at very slow speeds you can presumably resist the urge to throw it around the sky in 8g maneuvers and rip the wings off.

No, I didn't; the first link to the SEV has the space version front and centre with a different arrangement of windows.

The Karibou is much much closer to the Lunar Electric Rover which also turns up in NASA's Moonbase Alpha, although because humans are bigger I don't think the LER has the nifty two up, one down seat arrangement the Karibou does.

If you're just fiddling about in the sandbox, I'd Hyperedit your test rig somewhere else.

But are you using the development branch?

I know this is a bit "how long is a piece of string" - but other than lacking the atmospheric performance nerf, how does this differ from the USI Orion mod, please?

You might try KSPWheel based landing gear, rather than stock. Perhaps the problem is not FAR-related.

Besides the usual questions, which I daresay someone else will ask, this is easy to check. Remove FAR, does it still happen?

There's a bit of a mess here in that KSP parts don't really have structural properties - they can break apart from each other, but not be squashed or twisted by internal loads in the vessel. So when you TweakScale a girder, do you want an extremely strong and stiff one (cube of linear dimension) or just one that's bigger? With no modelling of the demand, who can tell?

Well done! Of course, your very low water speed would rule this out, but otherwise I think it's best to maximise the sea part of a Kerbin circumnavigation, even if it is slower - because you can just lay in the course, do a bit of calculation as to when you expect to arrive, and leave it to sail itself. That wouldn't qualify as an Elcano circumnavigation.

Overrated? Let's have a race to install RO. Why would I want to improve my skills at a boring repetitive job that a computer can do for me? Computers are good at boring repetitive jobs. I no more want to improve my skills at it than I want to spend my time un-aring and un-tarring Debian packages on the offchance that dpkg suddenly falls down the back of the sofa - and maybe doing all the stuff in the install scripts for those packages by hand, just in case the shell interpreter is gone? Come to think of it, you'd probably prefer I "improve my skills" by writing my own kernel first. It's not without problems; the best way forward is to get the metadata right, to do work once so that a mod always installs correctly, rather than demanding each user do the donkey work themselves (which they will inevitably get wrong, producing the usual constant stream of "unzipped it in the wrong place" and suchlike.)

Core and Tools are installed only as dependencies; there's no need to select them for installation manually. The Exploration Pack, Asteroid Recycling, Freight Transport mods all have descriptive Homepage links in CKAN and are largely independent of MKS. The Kolonisation Class Suits obviously use Kolonisation. USI Life Support is nominally independent but there is a lot of synergy between the two (more recycling parts in Kolonisation, more habitats to live in).

In a FAR world spoilers certainly do provide downforce.

If I were you, I'd start with Minmus. It's really quite small, so you can get a feel for whether you want to embark on a major expedition.

If you make heavy use of mods and you let something auto-update your running copy of KSP, your problem isn't CKAN or the lack thereof; it's that you're letting something auto-update your running copy of KSP.

Inasmuch as this means anything, it's wrong. There's no particular reason to suppose the force will be "1G", assuming that is meant to mean 9.8 N per kg of hand. Once the car is at cruising speed, there is no "constant acceleration"; there's no acceleration at all if it travels in a straight line. Your complaint is also very unclear but: If the rocket is turning end for end, that's because there's more rocket (drag-wise) in front of the centre of mass than behind it, so as soon as it gets slightly off-axis it keeps turning. This is very likely when a first stage is dropped, when suddenly a large empty section behind the centre of mass is lost, eliminating a lot of drag at the rear but hardly moving the centre of mass. If the rocket seems to drag across the landscape unexpectedly, this may be down to Coriolis effects or confusion between surface-relative and orbital-relative measurement.