Blue

Could a neutron star ever be put in Kerbal Space Program as a mod? If not, is there any technical reason which prohibits someone making a planet with a rotational period shorter than 5 seconds?

IVA all the way.

It's a learned art. I've been playing since 0.13.1 and I still don't have the hang of building SSTOs. Heck, I only managed to ever build two successful models in the last version, and each only flew to space once as testing models.

Parachutes have always been this way. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be improved, I'm just remarking that this was a characteristic that was not modified in 1.0. Parachutes have been modified when interacting with the ground; in the previous version, as soon as your vessel touched the ground, the parachute disappeared from the craft. Now, it persists until the vessel's velocity (over the surface or angular) is very close to 0. This means you have too much torque in your SAS and/or not enough electric charge. Try adding some batteries and cutting back on the number of SAS parts you use. If you need the Smart SAS, try just using a different probe body to augment your controls, rather than an entire Inline Stabilizer.

That post gave me whiplash.

If it's classified as debris, then it is considered a seperate thing from your vessel. You can switch to it with [ or ] . However, if that part doesn't have a command node, you may be stuck with it as a deadweight hanger-on. There is a chance you could jostle it free while thrusting and getting off the surface, but you should use your own knowledge of the situation to make the best decision. If you're that afraid that you can't escape with that part hanging on, you might have to send a rescue mission. Consider revising future designs. Staging is a major consideration in design, and considered an undesirable necessity with most rocket systems these days, since anything you throw away from the vehicle always has a chance of flying off in a strange direction and hitting you, or blowing up or something.

Do you want to build a space ship?

Decent, though the control surfaces look a little ugly. Do the wings flex or are they stiffened with struts?

Fraudulent advertising for containing fewer than 103 parts.

I already have an objective that should keep me busy for a while. I built a 34 ton rover which is essentially a portable science lab. It has been designed to be durable enough to operate on Eve. The plan is to build an additional setup so it can be sent to Tylo. Then complete both those landing objectives with a Kerbal mission for each. And of course the only logical way to launch such a vehicle into space is to carry it piggyback on a 40-ton capable SSTO.

I've been wanting to see what kind of design would be necessary for a orange-tank capable SSTO. Awesome! Thanks

S.Berliner III's Bigger Boy The Soviet AA20-1

Friend linked me to the 0.13 Demo when he found it on SomethingAwful.

Something similar to this. I don't have any screenshots of when I had 0.13, but I know that the spacecraft I did have, I used at least 50 times to land on the Mun. Back when "landing gear" consisted of mounting tailfins to decouplers mounted as low as possible, so you wouldn't rest the engine bell directly on the surface.

That looks like an underground pneumatic Space Gun. A Space Gun is basically the same as a Mass Driver or Catapult, except the latter two have acceleration loads much more tolerable to crew (at the expense of being larger). (Mass Drivers typically accelerate things much faster, and Catapults are just designed to get modestly high speeds in a very short distance). I want to try and get rid of the headaches of having the part be able to be reoriented because of how it would be attached to the ground. I also don't want to deal with testing and debugging parts longer than 200 meters onto vessels, which is why I'll be trying to keep it like a launch-clamp: mounted to the ground.