Jestersage

I see. And the node size are pretty much visible, right? I am debating for the stage below a 3.75m engine plat, if I actually need another 3.75m part, or if I can just go with a 1.25m part.

Also, even though the shroud does not shield drag in stock, does the size of the stage below matter? I recall that if there is a node mismatch, it added drag.

Remove the steam cloud storage for KSP

Yes, that is my observed behavior, so before someone tells me ModuleManager changed some physics, I did assume it was intended stock behavior. So I guess the answer is: bnad or not, it's intended.

I think most people in this forum knows the the AJ10 of Apollo was OP because it was originally for Direct Ascent, or as wikipedia stated: However, is the AJ10 (in the original direct ascent mode) acting as a descent engine, ascent engine, or does it do both (ie, provide some ascent power before being discarded)?

What about reloading a craft that have engine plates (and engines beneath). Is it still locked?

So the stock game have shroud just for looks, but when ModuleManager is installed, it create an aerodynamic shroud? If so, what other tidbits does ModuleManager do to "imrpove" physics?

Is the autostrut locked on engine Plate due to a mod, or native to the plate?

Yeah, been trying to avoid it. Of course, anythign attached to engine plate is autostrut. I know it has been done. In my case, the Butalae octa (ie Saturn I clone). In the case of other's Luizopiloto's Omega M1. Yeah, he have struts. Also, @klesh I found that if I copy you el-quicko, then it does not fall apart.... but when it flies it exploded. EDIT: So far, my suspicion is that due to the forced grandparents, and possibly other behaviors (may or may not be caused by mods, but I only have build aid mods, KER -- no part mods), anything attached to the side nodes does not like clipping. Furthermore, while initial building is okay, attempt to place struts that link with other items attached to the side-nodes of the engine plate will fail. even with the side-to-side struts, the large solid rockets still find itself not stabled and ended up falling apart. Feel like instead of getting answers, I will have to research the engine plate behavior to prevent Kraken.

Thank you. What is the root node of the craft? The reason I am asking is because it's a variant of my "Butalae Octa", and it definitely doesn't fly apart despite the tanks being mounted on the engine plate nodes. I did encounter issues before on my Ladle YiWCC due to root nodes and etc.

The SRB actually had been moved out with tool so they are not touching each other; had not check if they are touching the engine plate.. the entire rocket is suspended off the ground by the means of launch clamps

Okay, I still have no idea when the Krakens get summoned with an engine plate -- whether that have to do with the node tree and etc. Basically, I want to attach 9 SRB to the bottom of a 3.75m Engine plate, by means of the 8x1 nodes. However, Just by putting them onto the launch pad, even without flying, the Kraken is automatically summoned and send the spinning before exploding. So how does the Engine Plate actually works regarding to the parts below? I actually managed to put a bunch of thrusters, and none of them fly apart.

This is more for the build itself than the challenge, but would my Fogin RX1 satisfy the requirements?

On a sidenote, have you tried using StageRecovery, and would you consider it a cheat for you?

I see. Even on my end, I was also trying to see whether I can justify building either of the Lockheed Landers, and the only reason I would do so is due to looks (my first Altair clone's Ascent stage is ugly due to use the MEM module with a Crew cab on top), crew capacity (more is better for me, but 6 vs 7 does not matter much, seeing the largest capsules I have is 6 crew), Fairing restrain (the 2.5m fairing get a bit bulky around Altairs, and if their plan is to launch on Delta/Falcon, it make sense to slim down the landers) multi-site hopper without station transfer (which my understanding is not what planned for the 2-stage version)

Thanks. I will combine both BetterTimeWrap and see if I screw up the save. (I actually have a dedicated save for each category)

Question: Would you consider the Lockheed Martin Lunar Landers (both the reusable version from Oct 2018 and the recent Apr 2019 2-stage) have too much overlaps with your existing landers?

And will it allow me to go beyond the stock's limitation on speed?

Is there a mod that alows really fast speed up to a desired launch window, so i can test my craft?

Oops. i manually edit my science value for the tech tree.

Lockheed martin expandable is the one recently proposed by LM, which is 2 stage, and thus shorter.

One of the fun things in Science/Career Mode is the contract, and the resource management with money. However, while we have Science mode, we do not have the inverse, which I call economy mode -- where tech tree and possibly even flight tools are unlocked, but reputations and funds is the lifeline. And it's not a bad idea, especially if one want to mimic and modern start up rocket company, where it's likely one can have better technology immediately, but is looking for funds.

Agree in that front. We seems to have more of people putting up vulgar crafts and or vulgar comments then plagarization.

This is technically half real-life, half KSP, because I am trying to figure out how all the different US landers differentiate from each other, and how to integrate that within KSP So far, there's the following lander: Altair draft 1 (2 stage, 4-people, horizontal cylinder with cargo bay) Altair draft2 (2 stage, 4-people, vertical cyliner) Boeing reusable (1 stage, 3~2 people, spherical crew cab) Boeing unknown (? stage, 3 people, horizontal cylinder cab, with cargo capability) Lockheed Martin reusable (1 stage, Orion based with lunar landing workstation; Basically a stripped down Lockheed Martin Winged Mars lander) Lockheed Martin expandable (2 stage, Orion based with lunar landing workstation; resembles 2-staging above lander) Not sure if I missed any. My real question is how are they actually different from each other? The lockheed Martin version just looks like Altair, but replacing the crew cab with a stripped down Orion. While Boeing have as much info as Chinese and Russia manned lunar lander, which is to say, nothing. And in turn of KSP-ization it's even thougher, since the lockheed Martin does imply the use of Mk1-3 capsule, but it's so much heavier. All in all, I am having trouble differentiate their designs.

So with 1.7 finally settled, I can finally release my Saturn V clone. I was actually debating whether to actually do it, seeing that everyone made one, and I never found a good way to attach a foldable LRV in a satisfying manner. For this, I actually have to thank "schwank" and his J-class LEM (and to a certain extend, OHara's Apollo 15) to show a good breakthrough regarding stowing the LRV in the scent stage instead of having it stick out weirdly: Check my kerbalX link in signature, as usual.