Spricigo

Yes, radiator panels work in atmosphere. Of course you don't want to expose the deployable variant to aerodynamic forces but that is a different issue.

Well, I'd suggest to ask in the mod thread. But I notice you already did. Most people on this subforum probably don't use the mod, so our help will be more likely be limited to suggest to check the download and ask if you place it in the correct folder.

If you don't mind mods:

I find more easy to design my rockets in the order I use the stages, last to first. And that don't prevent the possibility of an assortment of pre-built LV for a variety of different payloads. You may try making the fairing part of each LV, as in: Lifter I is to payload up to 1t that fit in the fairing, for more bulky payload there is Lifter I-B (which may, of course, have other differences not only the fairing). The fairing may be 'too big' for some payloads but having always the same aerodynamic profile may avoid those slight flight profile corrections and make the LV more easy to use in the long run.

New poster notice: The OP either solved his problem or gave up still in 2016

Yes you can kep the ship in line with steerable fins and gimbaled engines, but design your ship to not need it and it will open other options. Take for exemple the craft I posted early (Selene) It uses. It has 4 exagerated big Wings at the botton, what allow me to launch it with a relliant and two thumpers and not even worry about the [D] key. A thumper cost 850funds, plus 2wings that is 1800, meanwhile a Swivel+FL-T800 cost 2300funds. If I can do the same job with either (I do) why not save 500funds?

Well, I just strap the parts together to show the idea of a central core, its not even a WIP design. I don't dare to tell it would make the gravity turn nicely as it is but from what KER told me it would have enough TWR/DeltaV to reach the orbit with a nice margin. In any case if you can make the whole thing aerodynamic stable you don't need gimbals or steerable fins to fly it to orbit (easily). Right now you have those wings sticking out in the middle of your launch vehicle. Put another two at the bottom and it probably will be much more flyable.

My suggestiong don't requires 2,5m parts. Maybe another image exemplify it better:

Have you considered to put the spaceplanes around a central core? Something like this: As for how I deal with that subassemble behaviour, I just attach it [Somewhere] so it become part of the craft and then take the part I want to radially attach to [desired place]. It works fine to me (only drawback is usually I need to divide the 'subassemble' in two to move to the desired place) and it surprises me that it didin't worked for you.

Thank you for sharing. But I doubt the people that posted in the thread 2years ago are still interested.

McKerman, Kermanson... Less common kernal surname may be worth it's own thread.

Well, let's ask if that is a possibility. @Vanamonde ?

There are a few instances where you should avoid autostrut. 1.Inside fairings. 2.Too long connections. 3.Heaviest or Root may change (for the respective AS option) AS:Grandparent from boosters to core attachment tend to be safe. At least I'm yet to see AS:Gp being an issue.

Allowing AdvancedTweakables give you the option to change the options, without AdvT you go with whatever the default option is. If you turned AdvT because you didn't like the default option you stuck with those since then. (And IIRC defaults can be changed with simple MM patches.) Autostruts default to none, except landing gears/legs that are always AS:heaviest. It's annoying because most AS issues are caused by AS:heaviest, some by AS:Root and almost none by AS:Grandparent. But word from devs is that wheel are broken by Unity and AS:H is the possible workaround.

Yes.

I think I tried that and didn't worked. In any case I'll take another look.

Where may I find the info about the places each astronaut visited? Mod options welcomed. But I want something that work for a running game.

Now Im confused if you aren't concerned why asking what I think? Anyways, that is off topic. So I'd rather exemplify the usefulness of the upvote mentioning that people are using it in this thread and is working. The relevant answer are at the top while or meaningless discussion is there at the bottom.

It can. And there's a lot of good people to help with this already in this thread. You may also take advantage of some tutorials. (But b careful with old ones referring to things that changed in the game)

I also give full support your right to vote. Including in this poll. But I think may be good to you consider using better the right to not say something detrimental to you.

I give full support to your right to not vote. Including in this poll. And also like to point that you also have the right to not say something detrimental to you.

So IMHO the issue is not the format, rather the lack of votes. Still, the system works. Instead of quoting or mentioning a good response I may just upvote. Or for a question I made I can chose a correct answer* to signalize I got what I was looking for. IMHO keep the question tools in the questions forums and the discussion on the discussion forum. Problem solved. (Except that we really can't solve people's lazyness. Learning to use the forums is inconvenient. ) *A quick look at the threads currently at first page 7/21 have best answer marks (not counting sticks for obvious reason). 3/5 of the popular questions of the last mounth. Good evidence that works.

For this discussion not really relevant, the STS throttled down to avoid being thorn to pieces, not because fuel efficiency concerns.

Looking at version notes I found