RoboRay

Craft turned retrograde orientation = heatshield pointed prograde direction. Both are valid ways to say it, but without specifying "orientation" or "direction" it's easy to misinterpret.

Wow, six kerbals in there? Does it actually have enough volume for them and the other stuff? It does look great, though! I also have some concerns about the gold-foil heat-shield. Anyway, I've been having a lot of fun with the Winged Gemini: I found that it's controllable at much lower speeds if you shift the weight back on the wing by inserting the RCS ring module between the capsule and the wing adapter. I discovered the hard way that it can tumble completely out of control if you over-bank the craft at low speed, so I reconfigured the drogue parachutes to deploy and release individually to get the pointy end stabilized out front again... which came in handy when I rolled it too far while circling around to bleed off speed and altitude and get into position for the runway approach. I didn't manage to snap any pictures of that, but you can see one of the parachutes is gone toward the end. Thanks for the parts!

Dig around here: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/

The right answer for the number of engines if you are seeking maximum efficiency is always "one." However, since installing two engines doubles your thrust for only a small increase in dry mass, it's generally worthwhile except on very small ships. Beyond that, considering that higher TWRs offer no value to craft that never land, and that each additional engine produces a proportionally smaller fraction of the total thrust, it's really not worth adding more engines (and the structures to support them). If your goal really is higher TWR rather than efficiency, you're probably better off just selecting lighter and more powerful engines to start with.

The potential safe window is a little wider than your results, since there are many variables. I've done successful aerocaptures as low as 10.5km on Duna, arriving on a somewhat faster orbit than the usual minimum-energy Hohmann transfer. But good analysis, as I believe your results are spot-on for the more typical optimized orbits.

Thanks! I spent a lot of time on it. Here's a mission album if you want to see more pics: http://imgur.com/a/k9ng3#0

Do airships count?

As it's massive enough for its gravity to pull it into a sphere, Ceres (like Pluto) is now considered a dwarf planet.

Yes. That's the most efficient way to do it.

Well, it was a lot harder to rendezvous before the craft targeting system and the closest point of approach markers on the Map screen. If we had had docking ports back then, this would have been my first successful docking. I'm glad I did it in 0.17 simply for the feeling of accomplishment, but I sure do appreciate the tools we have now.

It's a Spaceport issue, not an issue with any particular mod.

What is your security software? It probably considers everything on file2web a potential threat. If it's calling out warnings based on the origin of the file rather than the content of the file, you should look into better security software.

I don't recall the weight, but this was my smallest Mun mission: It did have a heatshield installed for Deadly Reentry, but other than that it was straight-forward.

Best cockpit in KSP! Since it's modeled very closely on the real one, it leverages the real-world R&D that went into it. You end up with amazing visibility from those two tiny windows, because they are properly positioned right in front of your face and low enough that you can see not only straight forward but even below the plane of your eyes. Squad could learn some great lessons in IVA design from studying the Gemini cockpit window arrangement. Stock capsule windows are pretty worthless, due to the way they are positioned. Even the Mk1 Cockpit has inferior forward visibility to this capsule.

I've not experienced that problem (or even heard of it before), but I have not used them much either in the last couple of KSP revisions. I'm afraid I can't really help much with troubleshooting, as my work on the parts was simply repackaging them to work on newer versions of KSP and adding some more size variations. If your craft has power and you are not in time-warp, they should simply work. Do you have any mods installed that affect how part animations work? It's possible that there might be a conflict, somehow. Have you tried the newer version of the cargo bays offered at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47701-0-21-Wolf-Pack-Aeronautics-V1-2-Parts-Pack-%28Updated-Aug-30-2013%29 ? They have taken over the continued development of the old cargo bays. I don't know if their versions are directly compatible, size-wise, however.

There's no docking like Gemini docking!

I loved the Lazor Docking Cam, but I simpy detest the Romfarer plugin (and quit using his docking cam) because of all the baggage that comes with it. If there were a way to merge them by only incorporating the camera functionality and leaving all the other mess out, that would be fine... but I wouldn't want anything to do with this mod if it required the full Romfarer plugin. I understand that some people find things like altered physics distances and exploding launch clamps interesting, but I really do not. Operation-wise, though, there's no functional difference. You can "careen around" all axes at once with either instrument.

I'm happy to see L2K's old Spacejunk Cargo Bay live on in a new and improved form. It looks great! I just wanted to add an explanation for the exact scaling I used in the old version on Spaceport... those specific values were chosen so that the bays could accommodate a payload of the appropriate size plus RCS quads without the quads clipping into the sides or doors. That left the bays bulging outward a little too much for the appearance I would have preferred, but proved to be very useful in practice.

Ah... I didn't know it had been released. I'll update the Spaceport entry for this mod to direct users to the new pack for future development.

I love the 48-7S, but the ISP is a little high... I had assumed that it would be brought into balance when it became a stock part, but it matches the stats it had as a KSPX mod part. I use it for the ascent stage of my Apolloesque LM... ...among many other applications I find for it.

Sure! Here's my DC-X Delta Clipper-inspired SSTO: I haven't rebuilt it since the design of the NovaPunch conical fuel tanks was changed, but I expect it's still workable.

You can infer the relative lateral and vertical velocities from the drift rate of the needles. That's the beauty of analog gauges... they display not only the current value by their position but also the rate of change over time by the speed of their movement. They do require a more intuitive (rather than purely mathematical) understanding of the process to glean all the available information from them, however. Personally, I'd rather see this instrument remain simple than add redundant clutter. Even most of the information Cpt. Kipard is asking for is already there... simply presented graphically rather than via precise numerals. But, so long as I can switch off the duplicate numerical displays, I certainly can't argue against them being an option.

Very small rocks?

The Quantum Core works perfectly fine... click on the Core to start placing a strut, then click where you want the end-points to go. The Strut Guns have to be aimed correctly during construction... the red beams show the orientation of the extruded strut. If you dock anything in the path of that beam, a strut will form.

Remember that the wings are supporting the full weight of the plane in flight, so the flexing from supporting part of the weight on the ground (assuming the nose gear is on the fuselage) is less than the flexing they will experience once you take off. Landing gear under the wings is a total non-issue, from a load bearing standpoint... the wings must be capable of support loads significantly greater than that during banking turns in flight. Considering the improved stability from the wider stance, along with the innate positive angle of attack during the takeoff roll, mounting the gear under the wings is frequently a superior option.