StevieC

This mod needs an Osaul tail-ramp with the same cross-section as the Osaul nose (that is to say, the "radial hump" built into it, to provide somewhere to attach tailplane surfaces to).

Your poll mentions a solid-fuel-burning RCS. That makes no sense, as solid-fuel engines, once started, can't be shut down.

Other suggestion that could be a good alternative to the cargo-hold Mk3 to 3.75m adaptor: A rear cargo-ramp that has the same cross-section as the Osaul nose-ramp, with the dorsal spine part which contains the cockpit on the nose ramp serving as the tailboom on the rear ramp, with the dorsal-spine also widening enough to provide vertical panels on which to mount the tailplane, and a flat top on which one could mount the vertical tail, although one might wish to instead configure the tail-surfaces like those of the An-225 to allow for mounting of external cargo atop the fuselage.

even if the launch-clamps on the Mun thing is fixed, there is still an annoyingly frequent occurrence of contracts to test launch clamps splashed down on, in flight over, on sub-orbital trajectory over, in orbit of, or even on escape trajectory out of Kerbin.

Does anyone know a way to make the game STOP offering contracts to test launch-clamps in places that are NOT at the launch-site? I am constantly having to slog through offers of contracts to test launch clamps while splashed down, in flight, on sub-orbital trajectory, in orbit, or even on ESCAPE trajectories from not just Kerbin, but even the Mun and Minmus, and it is outright exasperating.

Small request: A part that allows the Osaul "Massive Aircraft Cargo Bay" to connect smoothly into the new Mk3 rear cargo-ramp, and have the cargo-space be continuous in the nose out the tail? (er, that came out sounding wrong, but you get my gist, like the C-5 Galaxy or the Antonov 124's cargo-holds, allowing both ends of the fuselage to open)

and KerbalStuff is down.

CKAN gives a 404 Not Found error when I try to install v1.0.9

What delta-V is best and when should I fire my engines, and how high above Kerbin should my starting orbit be?

Looks like the attachment nodes are already corrected, just not in CKAN yet.

I noticed that a few of the 2.5m modules have a problem with their attach nodes (instead of having a top and bottom attach node, the top attach node is there twice). Although I can fix it myself in the .cfgs, it's a REAL hassle. Please fix. I know I've seen it in landermodule.cfg and SSP-10CrewCabin.cfg in /SXT/Parts/Hull/ServiceMod1/. If it's already fixed, it hasn't pushed through to the CKAN repository yet.

I'd like to see at least an IVA for the SPKTR module, as its unusual shape makes the Hitchhiker IVA particularly incongruous to the module's appearance.

I have a mighty NEED!

Is the life-support display compatible with RoverDude's USI life-support?

I have built an asparagus-staged vehicle based on the Kerbal-X, with asparagus staging, and have been trying to use MechJeb-dev v512's ascent guidance to automate ascent to orbit with autostaging. The issue I have is that when auto-stage sends the command to jettison an emptied pair of boosters, the two decouplers do NOT fire simultaneously, and that causes the rocket to wobble, resulting in a collision with one of the jettisoned boosters, triggering an explosion that destroys at least one of the six tail-fins, and often destroying the central Mainsail engine as well. I use AutoAsparagus, and have tried virtually everything I can think of to remedy the problem. Everything I've tried has proved useless. Please help!

The concept behind the Valkyrie's design was a phenomenon called "Compression-lift". The theory went that the wedge-shaped engine-housing beneath the wing would push air into the space under the wing inside the downturned wingtips, increasing air-pressure beneath the wings enough to create sufficient lift to overcome the loss of wing-area, and that the downturned wingtips would act to increase vertical fin area for greater directional stability at Mach 3. The aircraft's flight-testing confirmed the hypotheses, but the thing's radar and infrared signatures were both enormous, making it an easy target for anti-aircraft missiles.

For the record, there was a design-change on the 2nd XB-70. Its main wing (well, the parts outboard of the twin vertical tails) were given a 5 degree dihedral angle, to improve handling at speeds above Mach 2.5, and to correct for that, the drooping wingtips were made to fold 5 degrees extra so they would fold to the same anhedral angle that the first prototype's wingtips had with the "flat" wings. Prototype 1's wingtips folded 25 degrees down for flight between mach 0.9 and mach 1.8, and 65 degrees down at speeds above mach 1.8. To compensate for its extra 5 degrees of dihedral, Prototype 2's wingtops folded 30 degrees down for flight between mach 0.9 and mach 1.8, and 70 degrees down at speeds above mach 1.8. Prototype 1 (s/n 20001) Prototype 2 (s/n 20207) You can see the extra dihedral if you look at the 2nd prototype's wing-trailing-edge. North American Aviation proposed to attach a delta-winged version of the X-15 rocket-powered spaceplane atop the XB-70 like this. I was thinking of a version of this with the 2nd prototype Valkyrie (with the extra dihedral on the wings, as the lack of dihedral on prototype 1 is why they limited it to below mach 2.5). Just a suggestion

Rotating the boost cover means that the notch in its base won't line up with the umbilical-bridge on the service module.

the SSP-10 Crew Cabin's cfg file has a bug in the stack node for the bottom.

and now I'm fantasizing about the proposed delta-winged X-15 that was designed to be carried piggyback atop the second XB-70 Valkyrie (which unfortunately is the one that got destroyed in a mid-air collision with an F-104), and said XB-70 being made into flyable planes in KSP

Would try this, but your decision to move the crew hatch on the Mk1-2 capsule makes it incompatible with sumghai's SumDum Heavy Industries service module suite.

I didn't make this but I thought you might want to see it. Just a friendly heads-up.

how's the hollow 3.75m-Mk3 adapter cargo-hold segment coming along? Another thing that might be useful is a version of that radial fuselage segment of the type used for 3.75m segments attached behind your current nose ramp segment, but with a science-lab inside

the service bays need ramps for rovers.

May I suggest something for inclusion?