SpaceChipmunk

So what you are saying is that the "Fuel tanks that you place wouldn't actually be fuel tanks, but more like fairings that can have proportionately sized LF + O tanks within?

Problem I can see with that is everything would end up looking like an F117. All angular. The parts themselves would be better off with the heat resistance built in, but then it would negate another very good addition to the game. Besides it is not too hard to survive re-entry with a spaceplane currently.

There is only so much the developers can devote their limited time to. These are just a couple of gripes that you have pulled out from many previously listed. Besides, what is the point in building up a modding community if you are just going to implement Everything that they come up with? Best to leave some things to the community to solve so that the devs don't have a million and one things to focus on! Also removing the objects from the game over a certain distance is really good caretaking. If you decouple 100 boosters from your rocket, you dont want to be still feeling the effect of their lag when you are half way around the planet! So remove them from the memory! They are not tracked to the ground. Even the mods make the assumption that if it has a parachute on it, there is a high chance for it to be recovered.

I would say just keep rescuing them from space, it is a lot better to get paid to get a new recruit than it is to pay for one!

Ok let's for a moment assume that it were possible to make an exact copy of someone. If we had two copies in two rooms. Then they should, if they are identical behave in an identical manner to identical stimuli. This would apply up to the point that they encounter each other. There reaction to each other would in theory be identical, but then they should adapt their behaviour to each other, so if they were brought into the same room and posed a question, they would behave identically to a shared experience. Pose them a puzzle and they should work together? If they are seperately exposed to stimuli at seperate times. Then it is safe to assume that while they would react the same way to the stimuli that their behaviour would not be synchronised since the stimuli were applied at seperate times and therefore when the stimuli is stopped and they return to an idle state, then they would not be behaving the same as each other at the same time. Is that at least at the heart of what the original question was trying to get at?

The part description in the VAB does state that the "Un-boxed" version cannot be retracted, but you have to go to the RMB menu to see that.

I think the ISP changes of some of the engines have been the main thing to catch me so far. Also adjusting the flight profile to get to orbit gave me a little bit of a puzzled look when it was first introduced, but that was simple enough to overcome.

The tech tree has always been a problem, so much it has prompted me to actually join and comment after all these years! The idea of an ideals based tech tree is a good one. The first few techs in the tree can unlock parts that are universal like lander legs, basic batteries, ladders, et al... Then it would follow the ideal that you choose. Kind of like a more detailed version of what you get in Company of heroes where you choose to follow either Infantry/Airforce/Armour ideals. In this you could follow Manned Rocketry/Remote Tech/Aeronautics. Within these you will get technologies relating only to their fields. Then contracts should change relating to whatever path you have decided to take. Tourism contracts? Go for Manned Rocketry or Aeronautics. Site Survey contracts go for Remote Tech or Aeronautics. As for maneuver nodes not being unlocked at the beginning. Well I can understand that. The Gemini and Apollo astronauts had to work everything out on a piece of paper. It is only in the age of the microchip that computer systems can give a good representation of when they should be making what maneuvers.